Sitting of 22 January 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions praying the House not to pass the Established Church (Wales) Bill into law were presented by—
Sir Edward Coates, (4 petitions) from Lewisham, bearing 881 signatures.
Mr. Dalziel, (9 petitions) from the Brixton Division of Lambeth, bearing 914 signatures.
Mr. Rigby Swift, (15 petitions) 4 from St. Helens, bearing 6,414 signatures, and 11 from the Rossendale Division of Lancaster, bearing 2,617 signatures.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5036 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 1, 1913).
Copy presented of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Turkey respecting Commercial Travellers' Samples. Constantinople 6th November, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of Return of Proceedings during the months of July and August, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Return of Advances made under the Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of February, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order dated 9th January, 1913, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners under Section 78 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, entitled National Health Insurance (Further Payments to Approved Societies) (Scotland) Order, 1912 (No. 2) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BRITISH PLAIN SPIRITS IN BOND (SCOTLAND).
Return ordered, "showing the quantities of British Plain Spirits in Bond in general and in distillers' warehouses in each Excise collection in Scotland on the 31st day of January, 1912, and the 31st day of October, 1912 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 318, of Session 1911)."—[Sir John Dewar.]

VACATION OF SEATS (MEMBER HOLDING CONTRACT).
Second Special Report, with an Appendix, from the Select Committee, brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 452.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Temperance (Scotland) Bill,
Kirkcaldy District Water Order Confirmation Bill, with Amendments.
Motor Traffic,
That they give leave to the Lord Montagu of Beaulieu to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on Motor Traffic, his Lordship consenting.

KIRKCALDY DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    CASUAL LABOUR (ROYAL DOCKYARDS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the statement made in the Report of the Poor Law Commissions that casual

    387
    labour is the curse of modern industry, that it is deteriorating to a man and disastrous to his family, he can see his way to so arranging the taking on of labour in the Royal dockyards as to give a larger amount of permanent employment than is at present given?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As the hon. Member is aware, employment in the dockyards is to a large extent of a permanent character, and when discharges become necessary in one department every effort is made to absorb the redundant men in any vacancies which may exist in other departments. Of some 52,000 men in our employment, roughly 8,000 are established, and therefore cannot be dismissed save for misconduct; and of the remainder it is safe to say that three out of four are pretty certain of continuous employment. It is necessary from time to time to take on a comparatively small number of men to meet temporary requirements, for whom it is impossible to provide continuous employment, whilst in the case of coaling the work is necessarily of an intermittent character. Coaling labour is however, paid for at special rates, which are in excess of those paid for ordinary casual labour. I am fully aware of the disadvantages of casual employment, and would certainly desire to reduce it to a minimum; but I regret that T can give no undertaking in the sense indicated in the last part of the question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he is reducing casual employment when the authorities at Devonport Dockyard at the present time are dismissing men with twelve, fourteen, and fifteen years' service? Is not that disastrous to these men and their families?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I said employment to a large extent was of a permanent character, and even of the hired men it was safe to say that three out of four were pretty sure to obtain employment.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May we understand these men who have such long service will be considered immediately there are opportunities of taking men on?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said if we have to turn men off for want of employment we make every effort to find them other employment, but I am sorry to say that is not always possible.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS (NAVAL WING.)
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether certain Special Reserve officers of the Royal Flying Corps have graduated at the Central Flying School and been recommended for continuous service to the Naval Wing; whether, notwithstanding that, they are kept waiting without any remuneration, liable at any moment to be posted for service, and for that reason unable to take up any other work; and, if so, whether he will give instructions to remedy this state of affairs?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Only one gentleman who is a candidate for continuous service in the Naval Wing of the Royal Flying Corps has graduated at the Central Flying School, and he has been recommended for the Naval Wing. The gentleman in question, however, suffers from a physical disability which may prevent his being accepted, and the matter is now under consideration.

    NEWSPAPERS (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to a paragraph in the "Scots man" newspaper of 16th January, in which detailed information is given of the situation of the Admiralty oil tanks at Invergordon, the size of the field in which they are situated, their dimensions, capacity, the time at which the pipes leading from the tanks to the harbour will be ready to convey oil to ships, the number of tons of coal that can be stored on the site, the name of the Government boat now employed in laying down moorings, the extent those stretch up the Forth, etc.; whether he thinks that such information supplies all the details necessary for the purpose of espionage; how much information leaks out; and if any means can be taken to prevent newspapers publishing what ought to be secret and confidential information?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen what is stated in the newspaper referred to. It is well known that much information relating to naval and military defensive measures has found its way, because its significance is not fully appreciated, into the Press to the detriment of the public interest; but it is believed that in cases where such information is recognised as secret and directly affecting the defence of the country, the Government may rely

    389
    upon the cordial co-operation of the newspaper Press in preventing its publication.
    Mr. LYELL: May I ask whether there are any means at the disposal of the Admiralty whereby in the case of information being published which ought not to be published the Department can obtain from the editor or manager of the paper the source from which he got the information?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think I have got any power of that sort.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the Admiralty directly asked various newspaper editors in the country not to publish this kind of information?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We are in consultation with some of the newspapers.
    Mr. HOGGE: Not with all?

    GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that on 1st April, 1915, we shall have only thirty-four completed ships of the "Dreadnought" type (excluding the battle-cruiser "New Zealand") to Germany's twenty-three, he will consider the advisability of placing orders for three armoured ships immediately, so that we have by the date named the margin of 60 per cent, over Germany in "Dreadnoughts," which the Board of Admiralty considers necessary?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It will be my duty to deal fully with the question of our margins of naval strength in introducing the Navy Estimates in March. I would only observe that, including the "New Zealand" and the two "Lord Nelsons," the figures should read thirty-seven to twenty-three, which is a superiority of 60 per cent.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will arrange so that ample time is afforded in March for the discussion of these matters?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Questions relating to business, as the hon. Member is aware, should be addressed to the Leader of the House.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman if he will use his endeavours to arrange that we shall have ample time.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many of the armoured ships, small cruisers, and destroyers provided for since and including the financial year 1906–7 by Great Britain and Germany, respectively, have been passed into service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures asked for are as follows:—
    Great Britain—

    18 armoured ships out of 31 provided, including the "New Zealand."

    16 small cruisers out of 30 provided including 8 light armoured cruisers of this year's programme.

    72 destroyers out of 110 provided.

    Germany—

    14 armoured ships out of 24 provided.

    10 small cruisers out of 14 provided.

    75 destroyers out of 84 provided.

    I would point out that the question is misleading, as it omits all the ships of the 1905–6 programme.

    GIBRALTAR.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that, on 22nd July, it was officially stated that the organisation of the Fleet prior to the recent changes provided for the maintenance of sixteen battleships in Home waters and six at Gibraltar, where they were stated to be three and a-half days distant and a day for coaling, be will state the date and the grounds on which it was decided that Gibraltar is in Home waters?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Ever since Gibraltar was detached from the Mediterranean Command at the beginning of 1905 it has been recognised as occupying an intermediate position between the foreign stations and Home waters. For certain purposes it may be convenient to reckon Gibraltar in Home waters, but there is no intention of assuming that for strategical purposes its distance from home can be ignored.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received a complaint against the firm of Messrs. Forsyth and Son, sub-contractor, at the Rosyth naval base, for infraction of the Fair-Wages Clause in the employment of labourers doing painting work at 7d. per hour; and whether he is making inquiry into the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A complaint of the nature referred to has been received. I am making inquiry into the matter.

    RATES OF PAY.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the cost of the extra payments made to shipwrights and carpenters' crew, in virtue of the statement recently laid before Parliament showing the present and new rates of pay for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, should be £24,000 and not £2,400 as therein stated; and, if so, will he take immediate steps to make the matter clear to the ratings in question so that the present misunderstanding may be cleared up without delay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; by a printer's error the figure was shown as £2,400 instead of £24,000. The correct figure was, of course, included in the grand total. The correction has already been notified to the Fleet, and full instructions have been issued showing how the new rates will affect men no serving.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware this is the second great error which has occurred in the White Papers which have been issued by the Admiralty in the last six weeks?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I am not aware of that, and I will thank the hon. Member to call my attention to any grave errors.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TIDWORTH AND BULFORD CAMPS ELECTRIC INSTALLATIONS).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for War if the specifications for the electric installations at Tidworth and Bulford camps were prepared by a private firm; and, if so, will he mention the name of the firm and say why they were not prepared by the War Office electrical department?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The specifications in question were prepared by Messrs. Kennedy and Jenkins in conjunction with the War Office electrical staff. This staff, which is mainly employed on electric lighting for defence purposes, is not large enough completely to supervise extensive new installations such as the Tidworth and Bulford scheme.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Will the specifications for the further extensions be prepared in the same way or will they be prepared exclusively by War Office clerks?
    Mr. BAKER: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked at what place the Armorduct cable, selected for the Army camps at Tidworth and Bulford, will be inspected by representatives of the War Office?
    Mr. BAKER: The firm of Kennedy and Jenkins, who are dealing with the installations in question, will inspect the cable at the works of Messrs. Lynen and Co., Eschweiler, near Aix-la-Chapelle.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary for War if his attention has been called to an advertisement circulated by the Armorduct Manufacturing Company, and setting forth that the Armorduct cable has been selected by the contractors to the War Office for the Army camps at Tidworth and Bulford, requiring approximately 300 miles; is this cable manufactured by Lynen and Company, Eschweiler, Germany; will he say who are the contractors who are providing the cable; and were all the competing contractors given an opportunity of quoting for German cable, or were they, or any of them, asked to tender for best quality English cable?
    Mr. BAKER: Nothing is known at the War Office of the advertisement mentioned. The cable is manufactured by the company referred to. The contractors are Messrs. G. E. Taylor and Co. All competing contractors were given the same opportunity to quote for any cable complying with the British Standards Committee Report No. 7 of 1910.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to an advertisement in the papers to this effect:—
    "Is Armorduct cable good enough for you? It is good enough for His Majesty's War Office."
    Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it desirable that the War Office should thus be used for the purposes of advertising the goods of foreign competitors?
    Mr. BAKER: I have heard nothing of the advertisement. But I can assure the hon. Member the cable is fully up to our requirements.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Secretary for War (1) whether the equipment of the Regular Infantry includes packs, while that of the Territorials does not; and, if so, what are the reasons for making this distinction in equipment; (2) whether, in equipment regulations of the Army, Territorial Force, he will include packs in the articles enumerated in Table 2, Accoutrements (V.), Infantry; and (3) whether he is aware that the military officer responsible reported, in the ease of the 6th battalion, Cheshire Regiment, that a pack is required to complete the equipment in possession of this unit, and that he made a similar report in the case of the 5th battalion of the Cheshire Regiment; and if he will explain how the commanding officers of these battalions are to obtain packs, in view of the fact that packs are not authorised by the equipment regulations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The equipment of Regular Infantry includes packs. The type of pattern of accoutrements by Territorial Force units is left to the discretion of county associations provided that the equipment is suitable and can carry at least 100 rounds of ball ammunition. Some associations have provided similar equipment to that of the Regular Infantry. The pack is not considered essential and is not therefore included in the articles enumerated in the table of accoutrements mentioned. It is understood that certain inspecting officers recommended the use of the pack, but the question of adoption rests with the county association concerned.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: If it is essential for the Regulars, is it not equally essential for the Territorials? Are not both forces prepared to go to war?
    Colonel SEELY: I should have thought the hon. Member would have seen the distinction between the two forces. The tasks required of them are different.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say the Territorials do not need them?
    Colonel SEELY: The two forces are designed for different purposes. The Territorial Force is primarily designed for home defence, while the Regulars are designed for service abroad. Consequently, the equipment in each case is necessarily different.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: But are not both—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot argue the question now.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS (MILITARY WING.)
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary for War whether the Royal Flying Corps possesses at the moment any proper transport for aeroplane squadrons travelling by road; whether the Royal Flying Corps possesses a motor-driven travelling workshop; and whether proper trailers which can be attached to motor cars exist for the purpose of carrying aeroplanes by road?
    Colonel SEELY: The Military Wing has motor vehicles for transport of the squadrons by road; the full equipment is not yet complete. The supply of a motor-driven travelling workshop is now in hand, and trailers of the nature mentioned are now being manufactured.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the twenty-six aeroplanes belonging to the Military Wing of the Royal Flying Corps, which are said to be in flying order, include a number of monoplanes recently delivered; if so, whether alterations are to be made in these monoplanes; if so, whether they can be classed as being in flying order; and whether any officers of the Royal Flying Corps have had experience of flying these machines?
    Colonel SEELY: The twenty-six aeroplanes mentioned include thirteen monoplanes of which only three have been delivered during the last three months. The monoplanes are being examined and any improvement found to be necessary will be made; they are in flying order, though possibly some improvement may be desirable. The reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will these monoplanes come under the consideration of the Committee appointed to consider the general question?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir. All monoplanes must now be examined with a view to a full report from the Committee.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether, in view of the fact that it is the general custom in the Royal Flying Corps for an officer to fly the same machine, the Secretary for War will consider the advisability, in the interests of the safety of such an officer, that others should be

    395
    prevented from flying his machine; and whether the absence of any hard and fast rule on this subject is due to the fact that there are insufficient machines to provide a separate machine for each officer who flies?
    Colonel SEELY: It is usual for officers in the Royal Flying Corps to fly the same machine, but by no means invariable. Quite apart from the question of the number of machines, it is not considered advisable to limit the discretion of officers commanding squadrons in allotting machines.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary for War whether it is advisable that officers who are on probation with the Royal Flying Corps should do their course of training on machines belonging to the Military Wing in view of the fact that such officers are liable to damage these machines, which ought, in fact, to be in a fit condition to be used on active service at short notice; whether he will consider the advisability of buying a number of smaller, low-powered, cheaper machines on which such officers should practice without risk of damage to the materiel of the fighting squadrons; whether a new high-powered and high-priced aeroplane was recently broken up by such a learner on the day of its delivery to the Military Wing; and whether, in the public interest, he will prevent money being expended in this way when we admittedly have an insufficient supply of aeroplanes both for tuition and for active service purposes?
    Colonel SEELY: As regards the first part of the question, it is not proposed to interfere with the discretion of the officer commanding the Military Wing in this respect. As regards the second part of the question, the necessity of having aeroplanes for practice has been borne in mind in placing orders. The reply to the third part of the question is in the negative, and the fourth part of the question accordingly docs not arise.

    PENSIONERS.
    Captain CLIVEasked the Secretary for War (1) whether, in view of the.good results of paying Army pensioners weekly instead of quarterly, he will consider the possibility of paying them weekly and leaving it to them to ask to be paid monthly or quarterly if they wish, instead of, as now, paying them quarterly and merely inviting voluntary agencies, who
    396
    have not hitherto responded to the invitation, to undertake the distribution of the pensions weekly; (2) why Army pensions are distributed quarterly instead of weekly, when the latter method is admittedly better; and, if it is done for economy, will he state the amount of money saved annually?
    Colonel SEELY: Army pensioners are entitled by Regulation to have their pensions paid quarterly in advance, and a great number of them would object to any alteration of the system. Special arrangements can be made in individual cases for payment monthly or weekly. Up to the present time there have been very few cases in which such special arrangements have been asked for, but I am taking steps to give wider publicity to the fact that such arrangements can be made.
    Captain CLIVE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those to whom the arrangement would be most beneficial are not the type of men likely to ask for it?
    Colonel SEELY: It is a difficult question, because these pensioners are entitled by the Regulation to receive their pensions in advance, and it is a great advantage to those who are steady men. In many cases it is desirable that a large sum should not be paid at once, and I am doing all I can to make it known that such an arrangement can be made. But I cannot proceed in the direction indicated in the question without great difficulty.
    Sir W. P. BYLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious results arising in the case of many men receiving comparatively large sums at long periods, and how much better it would be to pay them weekly?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the same question in other words.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of issuing Regulations to affect future pensioners so as to place them in a different position to existing pensioners?
    Colonel SEELY: I am not quite clear that in a great majority of cases it would be an advantage, as the bulk of the pensioners are steady, respectable men, who prefer to have their pensions quarterly in advance. There are, of course, a minority to whom it is not an advantage, and the matter is full of difficulty.
    Captain CLIVE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman revert to the system of weekly payments, unless special arrangements are made?
    Colonel SEELY: It is a difficult thing to arrange, even if it can be done without legislation. The men are entitled by the Regulations to have their pensions paid quarterly in advance.

    SELBY GOVERNMENT ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary for War whether he has yet completed his inquiries as to the rates of wages at the Government Ordnance Factory near Selby; if so, what is the result of such inquiries; and, if such inquiries have not been completed, how soon he expects to complete them?
    Mr. BAKER: It has been decided to give an advance of 1s. 6d., and instructions are on the point of being issued.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the advance to be general, or does it only apply to this particular Department?
    Mr. BAKER: My answer applies to this particular case.

    HORSES.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary for War whether, under the new horse registration scheme, the bounty of £4 proposed to be given to owners of horses suitable and available for draft Artillery purposes in times of national emergency is to be limited to those owning at least ten such horses; and, if so, how many of such owners are deemed to exist in the country, and how many horses of the right type are likely to be registered as the result of offering the above-mentioned bonus?
    Colonel SEELY: For the present remount officers are not visiting stables from which less than ten horses are tendered for the Artillery section of the horse reserve. Arrangements are being made for accepting a proportion of horses from small stables where the owners agree to produce their horses at one place for inspection. As regards the last part of the question, the Army Council is satisfied that the scheme will greatly facilitate mobilisation.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an opportunity to the ordinary farmer, who seldom has as many as ten horses of this type?
    Colonel SEELY: I will consider that. It is a little difficult to arrange in cases where a man may have but one horse.

    INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF OVERSEAS FORCES.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for War whether he will state the cost for 1912 and give the details of figures connected with expenditure on the post of Inspector-General of Overseas Forces and Commander of Forces in the Mediterranean; does the latter title still exist, and what staff is attached to the post; and what journeys of inspection have been undertaken during the year by the general officer holding the post, and what was the cost of each journey, respectively?
    Colonel SEELY: The cost for 1912 was approximately £7,000, of which £5,000 was for the Inspector-General and £2,000 for the staff. The title in question still exists. The staff consists of an assistant military secretary, an aide-de-camp, a staff officer to the Inspector-General, who is a brigadier-general, and a staff sergeant-major. Journeys were undertaken in the year in question to the Mediterranean, Singapore, Colombo, and Egypt, of which the first journey cost £300, and the remainder £920.
    Mr. PIRIE: Is that £1,220 included in the £7,000?
    Colonel SEELY: I am not quite sure. I was wondering that when I looked at the question.
    Mr. PIRIE: I am informed it is in addition to the £7,000.
    Colonel SEELY: In any case, the money has been well spent.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is it necessary that the Inspector-General should travel by the "Mauretania" when going to the West Indies?
    Colonel SEELY: I think it is desirable he should travel in a British ship. But a question of this nature can hardly be dealt with in questions across the floor of the House. All I can say is that the inspections have been of very great value.
    Mr. PIRIE: May I ask whether the inspection of the Legation Guard at Pekin could not be as efficiently carried out by a captain detailed from India as by an extravagantly expensive journey across Siberia by this general officer; if the inspection of the few troops at Singapore could not have been undertaken by a field

    399
    officer and of those at Khartoum by a brigadier-general from Malta, instead of by this officer, whose journey up the Nile coincided with the height of the fashionable season in Egypt, and whether the sums so paid could not have helped to increase the pay of the poorly paid subaltern officer?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir, I do not think that the particular journeys to which my hon. Friend refers, could have been carried out so well by any other officer as this particular officer. His reports were, and will be, of exceptional value. With regard to future proposals for years to come, I have nothing to say now.
    Mr. PIRIErose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: These matters would well occupy our attention later on.

    Assassination of Dhebendra Kumar Ghose.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under- Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the assassination of Dhebendra Kumar Ghose at Comilla, in Eastern Bengal?
    Mr. BAKER: The Secretary of State has received a report from the Government of India that the Indian referred to was killed by a revolver shot in Comilla Town on the evening of the 14th January. Two or three persons of apparently respectable class were concerned. Fuller particulars have not so far been received.

    Imprisonment of Mr. Arnold (Burma).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether Mr. Arnold is still in prison; and what the India Office proposes to do in the matter?
    Mr. BAKER: Mr. Arnold is still in prison. The Secretary of State understands that; as yet application for special leave to appeal has not been nude to the Privy Council. At the present stage I can add nothing to the information already before the House.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Do the Indian Government propose to leave Mr. Arnold in prison, making no inquiry whatever into the conduct of the Civil servants concerned, and for how long?
    Mr. BAKER: Not at all. The moment the question is decided by Mr. Arnold as to whether he will apply for special leave to appeal, something will be done. If he
    400
    applies for an appeal then the question of bail will arise, and if it is decided not to appeal the question of the severity of the sentence will be considered.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Arnold's law agent is now in this country arranging for the appeal to the Privy Council, and in these circumstances cannot he advise that Mr. Arnold be allowed out on bail until the appeal is taken?
    Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir, I am well aware that Mr. Arnold's law agent is now in this country. The Secretary of State is only waiting until he takes some step, and then he will consider the matter.
    Sir J. D. REES: Did not Mr. Arnold receive a trial on appeal by a full bench of the Chief Court of Burma, and is there any reason for showing any sympathy towards a man whose offence was so grievous and so desperately—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of controversy.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Is not the real difficulty the very great cost of carrying an appeal to the Privy Council; is not the cost being met in Burma by subscriptions, and has not a very large sum been subscribed by poor people; and in these circumstances will not the India Office take action?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is in the nature of a speech. I would remind hon. Members that there are over 100 questions on the Paper which are waiting their turn to be asked.

    Purchases of Silver (India).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the hon. Gentleman if he will give the extract from the minutes of the Finance Committee of the India Council referring to the offer of Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company to Sir Felix Schuster to purchase silver on behalf of the Government, and a copy of the resolution passed authorising the future purchases to be made through this firm?
    Mr. BAKER: As I informed the hon. Member on 7th January, 1913, the letter referred to was brought to the notice of the Committee on 10th January, but no recommendation was then made by them, and therefore no entry appears on their minutes. At various later dates recommendations for the purchase of silver were made by the Committee, the first of which

    401
    was quoted in my reply of 5th November, 1912. These were in due course approved by the Secretary of State in Council. They are being circulated with the Votes. [See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. GWYNNEasked where, when, and by whom the arrangement was made between the India Office and Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company that all purchases of silver should be subject to a brokerage of one-eighth per cent.?
    Mr. BAKER: The arrangement was a formal acceptance of the usual practice. It was made orally at the India Office on 1st March, 1912, between the Chairman of the Finance Committee, acting under authority given to him by the Secretary of State in Council, and Mr. E. L. Franklin, of Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, and confirmed in writing, as shown in the recently published White Paper. The Assistant Under-Secretary of State and the Financial Secretary at the India Office were present at the meeting on 1st March.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nothing appears in writing as to the terms under which this contract was being carried on?
    Mr. BAKER: No. The question of brokerage is clearly described in the correspondence to which my answer refers.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is it not a fact that the question of brokerage was not raised until after the first order had been given?
    Mr. BAKER: The question of brokerage was settled orally, and it was confirmed in writing as shown in the White Paper.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the hon. Gentleman whether the experience of the last nineteen years, since the closing of the mints in 1893, shows that the yearly coinage required to maintain the currency is 766 lakhs of rupees, of which a yearly average of 251 lakhs is supplied by the recoinage of worn and withdrawn coins, leaving 515 lakhs or nineteen million ounces to be provided by fresh silver purchases; whether on this basis the India Office during six months in 1912 made purchases equal to thirty-two months' requirements, or over fifty million ounces; whether this system of buying was arranged after consultation with, or on the recommendation of, the finance minister in India; and, if the above figures are inaccurate, will he give, as nearly as
    402
    may be, accurate ones of a corresponding character?
    Mr. BAKER: During the last nineteen years coinage appears to have been at the rate of about 767 lakhs a year, of which about 559 lakhs a year have been provided from new purchases of silver. The India Office bought in eight months of 1912 about 50 million ounces, representing 28 months' requirements in new rupees from purchased silver. The decision not to buy until requirements could be clearly foreseen was in accordance with previous practice. In the present case it was reached after consultation with the Government of India, and was in accordance with their views.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer from what source the funds were provided for circularising the medical profession throughout the country in favour of working under the panel system and breaking the doctors' strike?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I do not know what circulars the hon. Member has in mind. The only document issued to the medical profession by the Commissioners was the explanatory statement sent out on 7th December to all registered medical practitioners in Great Britain describing the medical arrangements under the Act and Regulations, which has been laid on the Table of the House.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a circular was sent round to all the doctors in the country on behalf of the strike-breaking association?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have not seen anything of any circular, and I know nothing of any "strike-breaking association."
    Sir J. D. REESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it is laid down by Section 18 (1) of the National Insurance Act that a mother is to have free choice of doctor and midwife for her confinement; and, if so, whether he will explain why the Commissioners have issued Circular A.S. No. 73, by paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), of which it is proposed that a limited list of doctors and midwives shall be provided with whom the society administering the benefit had previously made arrangements,

    403
    and that the mother shall forfeit maternity benefit*if she refuses to employ one of such listed practitioners or midwives; and whether this circular has the approval of the Government, seeing that it does limit the choice of doctor and midwife.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The provision in question is expressly recited in the second paragraph of the circular to which the hon. Member refers. The circular does not contain, explicitly or by implication, any such statement as that which the hon. Member attributes to it.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether in some districts, in London the nearest doctor on the panel is resident several miles distant from the insured persons; and whether he is prepared to remove this disability by allowing insured persons to be attended by doctors not on the panels who are willing to comply with the provisions of Section 15 (3) of Part I. of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore arise.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, the answer is in the negative, will he allow me to bring to his notice something in the affirmative?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall be delighted to have any communications from the hon. Member.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the insurance committees in London and else where have any power to alter the policy stated by him when explaining the Government policy regarding the National Insurance Act at Whitefield Tabernacle on 14th October, 1911, that under that measure any insured person could have the doctor of their own choice?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I adhere to the statement which I made on 14th October, 1911. Providing the doctor is prepared to serve under the conditions of the Insurance Act, an insured person is entitled to his services under that Act.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that even if the doctors are prepared to serve under the Insurance Act
    404
    the insured person is to have the choice of his own doctor?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. Any doctor has the right to go on the panel under the Insurance Act, and if he goes on the panel there is a free choice of doctors.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that doctors who are not on the panel can come within the provisions of the Act, as he himself stated, and that the insured person shall have the benefit of the choice?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is in the nature of a speech.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give his official confirmation in this House to the statement he made at Whitefield's Tabernacle that any insured person was allowed to have whatever doctor he required?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not the statement I made. I referred to the doctors on the panels. If doctors refuse to serve under the Insurance Act, there is, of course, no free choice of doctors.
    Mr. FRED HALLrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: These are really all matters for debate, which might keep the House sitting till next Session.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if list doctors are entitled to prescribe and limit the hours during which they will attend insured persons; is he aware that in some cases doctors have intimated that their services are only available for insured persons between the hours of 9 and 10 a.m., and 5 and 6 p.m.; and will he state what is the position of persons who cannot attend during such restricted hours?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Each doctor on the panel is required to see patients at his own residence or surgery or other place appointed by him at stated hours, such hours being agreed upon between the doctor and the insurance committee. Any patient whose condition so requires must be visited by the doctor at the patient's own home.
    Mr. HALL: Are not the times I have given the times at which some doctors on the panels have decided to see insured persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is a perfectly normal practice amongst all doctors.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked whether it is proposed to limit the number of patients which doctors on the panel are allowed to contract to attend; and whether such limit will exceed 3,000?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers already given to similar questions by the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West, Enfield, Dulwich, and Eastbourne of 11th and 19th December, and 6th, 7th, and 9th January. No doctor ought to accept more insured persons upon his list than he considers he can properly be responsible for, and any insured person who has reason to believe that he is receiving inadequate attention from a doctor under the Act, can bring his case before the medical service sub-committee set up by the regulations.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is there no limit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No limit is laid down.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: How is the insured person to know how many patients are on the doctor's list?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is not a question of how many are on the list, but whether an insured person is receiving adequate treatment.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: How can he find that out till he finds he has not got any?
    Mr. HALL: Will he receive adequate treatment where each doctor on the panel has to attend 4,500 insured persons as in Marylebone?

    SHIPS REGISTERED IN AUSTRALIA.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked if seamen on British-owned ships engaged in the Australian coastal trade and registered in Australian ports have to be insured under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The seamen referred to would not be within the scope of the National Insurance Act unless the owner, or if there were more than one owner, the managing owner or manager resided or had his principal place of business in the United Kingdom, and even if this were the case only seamen who were domiciled or resident in the United Kingdom would have to be insured.

    LONDON INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked on what day the London Insurance Committee was fully constituted with representatives of all interests as provided for by Section 59 of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The London Insurance Committee was constituted by an Order made by the Insurance Commissioners under Section 78 of the National Insurance Act, dated 10th July, 1912.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked on what day the Insurance Commissioners were satisfied that the London Medical Committee was representative of the duly qualified medical practitioners resident in the county; and on what day the Insurance Commissioners recognised such medical committee, in accordance with Section 62 of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Islington on Monday last.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. HUNTasked what is the present cost of the National Health Insurance work which has been entrusted to the Customs and Excise Department?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not prepared to give any estimate at present.
    Mr. HUNT: If other officers are paid overtime why do not Excise officers get anything?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member heard the right hon. Gentleman say he was not in a position to make any statement at present. It is no good asking for further information.

    Increment Value Duty.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of Mr. Justice Horridge's recent decision in the case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Lumsden, whereby payment of Increment Value Duty was directed to be made on a builder's profit and where there had admittedly been no rise in the value of the site, he will introduce legislation to indemnify owners of houses and land against liability for payment of Increment Value Duty in cases where there has been no rise in the value of the site since 30th April, 1909?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Payment of Increment Value Duty was due on the case referred to in the question, because the builder realised a price considerably in excess of the combined market value of the land and the building erected by him. In estimating the increment value full allowance was made for the value of the house, including builder's profits; and the excess of price over value was in the nature of a fortuitous windfall, which under the Statute is liable to taxation. I do not propose to introduce amending legislation.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these claims put forward by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are in violation of the express and repeated assurances given by Members of the Government in the House, and under these circumstances is not some explanation due to this House?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not so. It is a grossly inaccurate statement.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Death Duties.
    Mr. ROYDSasked with respect to the estates of persons dying in the year ending 31st March, 1912, what proportion of the total value of such estates consisted of land and house property in the case of estates over £500 and under £1,000, and over £50,000 and under £70,000, respectively?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the case of estates over £500 and under £1,000 of persons dying in the year ended 31st March, 1912, the proportion of the value of land and house property to the total value of the estate was 35 per cent., while in the case of estates over £50,000 and under £70,000 the proportion was 15 per cent.

    Customs and Excise (Amalgamation).
    Mr. HUNTasked how many officers of Customs and Excise, formerly officers of Inland Revenue, who entered the service in 1896, are in receipt of salaries less than those paid to their juniors who entered the service in 1898?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: None.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the Customs and Excise services, which on 1st April, 1909, were placed under one Board of Commissioners, namely, the
    408
    Commissioners of Customs and Excise, with a view to amalgamation, are yet amalgamated; and what number of officers, formerly Inland Revenue officers, have since the date they were transferred from the Inland Revenue Department been employed in the Customs branch of the service?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The amalgamation of the Customs and Excise services is proceeding, but the process is necessarily a gradual one. About ninety ex-Excise officers have since the date of the amalgamation been employed on duties which formerly fell to the Customs service.
    Mr. HUNT: Could the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the slow progress and difficulty of the amalgamation, see his way to abandon it and to work the service as formerly in two branches?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think it would be desirable at all.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. FELLasked if the valuers of land and houses for the purposes of the Land Taxes have been instructed in their valuations to take into account the rise in the prices of all builders' materials, and the necessary increase in the cost of erection of houses at the present time, compared with the cost two or three years ago; and if this is taken into account in assessing the amount of the Increment Duty which may be claimed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Valuers have been instructed that in estimating the site value on the occasion of a sale, lease, or death, the deduction to be allowed under Section 25 (4) (a) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, is to be measured by the difference between the market value of the land in its then condition and its market value as a stripped site. The former of these valuations must necessarily take account of any rise or fall in the price of building materials which does in fact influence the market value of the composite property.
    Mr. FALLE: Has not a circular been sent out calling attention to the great rise in the value of materials?

    Factory and Workshop (No. 2) Bill.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Prime Minister whether, if it is impossible this Session to afford facilities for the Factory and Workshop (No. 2) Bill, he can

    409
    give any undertaking that facilities will be afforded to it in the next Session of Parliament?
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the Government propose to pass the Milk and Dairies Bill through all its remaining stages in both Houses of Parliament this Session or whether it is proposed to defer its consideration until the beginning of next Session?
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether the Factory and Workshop (No. 2) Bill will be proceeded with this Session; and, if not, whether it is proposed to take any action in the matter next Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I fear it is not possible to afford facilities for proceeding with the Factory and Workshop (No. 2) Bill or with the Milk and Dairies Bill this Session. I can make no promise for next Session, but the claims of these Bills will certainly be considered.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    SENATE ELECTION EXPENSES.'
    Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked (1) what is the maximum election expenses of candidates for election to the Irish Senate; (2) what will be the period between the issue of the writs and the day of poll in elections to the Irish Senate; (3) who will act as returning officers for the elections to the Irish Senate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There cannot be an election for the Irish Senate for more than five years after the passing of the Act, and all the matters referred to in these questions will be regulated by Orders in Council under Clauses 9 and 45 of the Bill.

    Federated Malay States.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the offer of a gift of money for naval purposes from the Federated Malay States creates a new precedent, he will give this House an early opportunity of deciding whether such offer of money shall or shall not be accepted by this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There has been no departure from precedent. The course followed is identical with that taken when the New Zealand battle cruiser was offered to and accepted by His Majesty's Government. The usual opportunities for discussing such matters will be afforded when the Estimates are under discussion.
    Mr. FALLE: Is there any connection between a free State, such as New Zealand, and the Federated Malays, where the inhabitants have no voice in the acceptance or refusal of the offer?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member thinks it worth while to raise that question, he will have an opportunity of doing so.

    Franchise and Registration Bill.
    Mr. NEWMANasked, in view of the fact that the Franchise and Registration Bill is at the same time a Bill for the abolition of university representation, at what stage of the proceedings under the timetable Resolution Amendments to the title of the Bill can be considered?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The title of the Bill, if amendment should become necessary, can be amended at the conclusion either of the Committee or Report stage.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the magnitude of the constitutional change involved in the granting of woman's franchise, he could see his way to allowing the Amendments on the Franchise Bill on the question of votes for women to be freely debated without either closure or guillotine?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I do not see my way to accede to the hon. Member's suggestion, but adequate time will, I hope, be allotted for the discussion of the subject.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman described the granting of votes to women—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should not continue standing on his feet when I rise. It is a most disorderly proceeding.
    Mr. HUNT: On a point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no point of Order.

    Supplementary Estimates, 1912–13.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked which Departments, if any, will present Supplementary Estimates for the financial year 1912–13?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to give the hon. Member the information he desires. Ample notice will, however, be given.

    Small Houses and Tenements.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that on the occasion of the periodical revaluation in 1903–4 increases of 41,549 in cottages and small houses and 85,797 in higher-class houses were shown as against increases in 1910–11 of 10,651 cottages and small houses and 25,506 higher-class houses, a difference of 91,189 houses, and having regard to the urgency of the housing problem, whether he will cause further inquiries to be made into the subject?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member must know that the increases of 1903–4 were the highest on record. It is, therefore, not fair to cite them for purposes of comparison. So far as regards the provision of small houses and tenements—in regard to which the housing problem mainly exists—the figures for 1911–12, so far as they are available, point to the normal rate of increase being attained in that year, and I do not think therefore that any further inquiry is called for at present.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman now convinced that the short age of cottages and small houses is mainly attributable to the passing—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise upon this question.

    Building Trade (Unemployment).
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will furnish any official sources of information showing that unemployment in the building trade had considerably diminshed since the passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The official statistics of unemployment are published monthly in the Board of Trade "Labour Gazette," and annually in the Abstract of Labour Statistics. From these sources it appears that the percentage unemployed among carpenters and plumbers, who are members of trade unions, was 11.5 in 1908, 11.7 in 1909, 8.6 in 1910, 5.0 in 1911, and 4.2 in 1912.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is it not a fact that the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted refer only to 72,000 men in the building trade, whereas 1,250,000 are employed in the building trade, and not more than 5 per cent, of those so employed belong to trade unions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: These figures have always been accepted as the test figures of unemployment in every trade. May I point out that whenever they tell against Free Trade they are always quoted.
    Several HON. MEMBERSrose.
    Mr. SPEAKER: May I point out that there are over 100 questions on the Paper.

    Farm Buildings (Departmental Committee).
    Captain CLIVEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the interesting but incomplete nature of the Report by the Departmental Committee on the duration of buildings, he will consider the desirability of re-appointing the same or a stronger Committee, with wider terms of reference, to collect all information regarding materials and methods of construction, and methods of increasing the durability of farm buildings and fencing?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Committee to which the hon. Member refers was appointed for the specific purpose of inquiring and reporting as to the probable duration of buildings. I appointed at the same time a Committee with a much wider reference (a copy of which I shall be pleased to send to the hon. Member) to consider comprehensively and in detail other questions relating to the construction of farm buildings. The Report of this latter Committee, which I understand is expected shortly, will be complementary to the Report already published.

    Crown Rents in Wales (Arrears).
    Mr. HENRY M'LARENasked how many cases during the past three years arrears of Crown rents in Wales have been demanded of over five years' standing, and in how many cases of over fifteen years' standing, and who is responsible for the accrual of such arrears?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the past three years there have been three cases in which demands have been made for arrears of Crown rents in Wales of over five years' and under fifteen years' standing; and twelve cases of demands for arrears of over fifteen years' standing. The responsibility for the accrual of such arrears rests partly upon the local collectors and partly upon the Office of Woods in London. Most of the rents did not exceed a few

    413
    shillings a year, and the accrual of arrears occurred in consequence of changes of ownership and of difficulties in identifying the premises liable, which are in private ownership, and are rather vaguely described in the old records.
    Mr. HENRY M'LARENasked whether, in the case of arrears of Crown rents of long standing in Wales, the decision as to whether a claim shall be prosecuted rests with the Department of Woods and Forests in London or with the local collector of rents; whether the local collector of rents is paid a fixed salary or by commission on the amount recovered; in how many cases have erroneous or false claims been made; and in how many such cases has any expression of regret or apology been tendered by the Department to the persons concerned when the claim has been withdrawn?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The decision referred to in the question rests with the Office of Woods in London. The local collector is paid by commission on the amount recovered. Claims which turned out to be erroneous have been made in four cases within the last three years and withdrawn. It does not appear that in any of these four cases a formal expression of regret or apology was tendered by the Department, but mistakes of this sort are, of course, much regretted, and every endeavour will be made to avoid them in future.

    Regent's Park Lands (Leases).
    Mr. CASSELasked whether negotiations are proceeding for the renewal of the leases of any of the lands in Regent's Park; and, if so, when it is proposed to give the House of Commons an opportunity of considering the whole question of renewals pursuant to his undertaking repeatedly given to the House?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As shown in the reply I gave to the question put by the hon. Member for St. Pancras North on the 21st instant, new leases have been arranged for three of the villas (including South Villa), negotiations are complete, subject to the issue of the Treasury Warrant, for a new lease of St. John's Lodge, and negotiations are pending for a new lease of St. Katharine's Lodge. In each case land, to which the public has not previously had access, has been or will be given up to the public on the grant of such leases, as I stated in the reply before referred to. The undertaking I gave was
    414
    that land should not be alienated for the erection of public buildings without discussion in Parliament, and did not refer to relettings of existing houses as private residences.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he will not give the House an opportunity of considering the question before the new leases are granted?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I did not say that.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of considering the question?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It does not rest with me to regulate business in this House.
    Mr. CASSEL: With whom does it rest?

    Persons of Independent Means (Census).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what was the number, according to the Census figures of 1911, of persons of independent means not employed or engaged in any business, profession, or paid occupation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Registrar-General informs me that the figures required by the hon. Member will not be available for some time to come.

    Lead Poisoning.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Miss Emily Edwards; whether he is aware that after having been taken ill on 20th July, 1912, she was certified on 22nd July as suffering from chronic lead poisoning; that on 3rd August she was told at Guy's Hospital that she had lead colic, and on 7th August received a certificate to that effect from the head doctor; that subsequently she obtained a certificate of lead poisoning from the certifying surgeon for her district and from a fourth doctor, by whom she was reexamined for greater certainty, but the medical referee on appeal pronounced against her claim; will he state whether the medical referee was qualified to give an opinion as a specialist in cases of lead poisoning; and whether he has any evidence besides that of the referee himself that the referee made any but a cursory and inadequate examination of the case?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): A representation was made to me in November last with regard to this case, which was generally to the effect stated in the question, and said that the girl and her mother complained that the referee had made only a perfunctory examination. I made inquiries of the referee, who informed me that he very carefully examined the girl, and his detailed report on the case was such as to corroborate this statement. The medical referees are men of high standing in their profession and very carefully selected, and I do not think that there was any negligence on the part of the referee in this case in carrying out his duties. The referee was appointed, not as a specialist, but as one of the general referees possessing good general medical qualifications.

    Workmen's Compensation Act (Regulations).
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Home Secretary, having regard to the fact that in cases of appeal under Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, the present Regulations do not state whether the worker posseses a right to have his medical attendant present at the examination by the medical referee, whether he is notified of the right; and whether he can see his way to making such modifications in the Regulations as to establish such a right and to provide for the worker being notified of its existence?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Regulations give both workman and employer the right to make any oral statements, or to submit any written statements, to the referee; and this includes a written statement by the workman's or employer's doctor, but they do not give either party the right to have his doctor present at the examination. The question of giving such a right was carefully considered when the Regulations were framed in 1907, and it was decided that it would be undesirable to do so. I am not aware of any sufficient ground for making a change in the Regulations on this point. I may add that it is open to the referee, if he thinks it desirable, to allow the doctors to be present and to question them, and this is, I believe, sometimes done.

    Eastwood Collieries, Notts.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been
    416
    called to the violations of the Goal Mines (Eight Hours) Act at the Eastwood Collieries, Notts, on various dates, but more especially on 18th and 21st June, when men were kept at work in the collieries eleven hours in the one case and twelve hours in the other; and whether he will have these cases inquired into?
    Mr. McKENNA: The matter has already been engaging the attention of the inspectors. The management explain that on the occasions referred to in the question the men were detained under the exception in the Act which allows emergencies or work uncompleted through unforeseen circumstances to be dealt with in order to avoid serious interference with the work of the mine; and state that if the work had not been done the men in the following shift would not have been able to work. It appears that the conditions of the mine give rise to difficulties in working the coal-cutting machines, but I am informing the management that the exception can only be used where the delays are unforeseen and not in cases where the conditions are such as habitually to give rise to delays; in the latter cases due allowance should be made for the occurrence of delays when arranging the work in connection with the machines. The inspectors will continue to give the matter their attention.

    Flannelette Clothing (Fatalities from Burning).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in the month of December last there were seventy-five persons burnt to death through clothing catching fire in England and Wales; whether of that number thirty-four cases were specifically reported to be due to the wearing of flannelette; whether his attention has been called to the statement of the county coroner at Kendal on 6th December as to the dangerous character of this stuff; and will he say when he proposes to take steps to prohibit the use of this inflammable material?
    Mr. McKENNA: The figures and the statement mentioned in the question are taken from an advertisement issued by the manufacturers of "non-flam" flannelette, of which a copy has been sent to me. They appear to be based on newspaper reports. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on the

    417
    9th and 16th December. Suggestions for legislation of the limited scope indicated in those replies have been submitted to me and are under consideration, and I understand that it is the intention of a private Member to introduce a Bill embodying these suggestions.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the statement, may I ask whether he will communicate with the coroners requesting them to report to him in all cases where deaths have occurred in the way indicated in the question?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will consider the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.

    Tramcar Accidents (Metropolis).
    Mr. ALLEN BAKERasked the Home Secretary whether, in the event of an accident occurring to a tramcar, the police regulations require the car to be detained until the arrival of an official from Scotland Yard; if so, will he say if there is practically only one official at Scotland Yard who attends these matters and who is not always available; and what statutory authority the police possess to make these regulations?
    Mr. McKENNA: The police have instructions that whenever a serious accident occurs to any public carriage—cab, omnibus, or tramcar—they are to endeavour, unless serious inconvenience will be caused thereby, to have the vehicle kept in position, and at once send word to the Public Carriage Office, when an expert officer is sent down to assist in ascertaining the cause of the accident, and to whom the blame, if any, is attributable. This is in the interests of justice, and the Courts require such evidence. It is not the case that only one officer is available.
    Mr. ALLEN BAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the circumstances of the case which occurred recently in South London were, owing to an official not being available, traffic was held up for two hours and a half?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.

    Criminal Law Amendment Act (Flogging).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the sentences of thirty lashes and twenty-four lashes with the cat,
    418
    imposed by Mr. Justice Darling on two men who protected and lived on, and with, prostitutes; whether there is any maximum to the number of lashes that can be inflicted for this offence; and whether he will allow the public and Press to be present to witness the execution of the sentence? [The hon. Member: In the question I handed in the word protected was in inverted commas.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not allowed.
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative; to the second and third, in the negative. The Act requires the punishment to be administered privately. The sentences are, of course, subject to appeal.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he adheres to the statement that the skin is not broken when these sentences are being executed, and whether, in view of that he will get a report from an independent doctor on these cases which Members of the House who are interested in this question can see in order to be certain that is so.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have had no information on the subject since I made that statement to the House. The statement I then made was made on the best evidence which could be brought before me.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Could we have an independent report from a medical officer?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. I think that the medical officer of the prison is sufficient.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can we have a report from the medical officer of the prison?

    First Offenders (Prison Rules).
    Mr. JOWETTasked if Miss Louisa Gay, who was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment in the first division at the Central Criminal Court on the 9th January, is only receiving treatment under Rule 243A; and, if so, why the sentence of the Recorder is not being carried out?
    Mr. McKENNA: This prisoner is being treated under the rules for offenders of the first division in accordance with her sentence.

    Limited Liability Companies (Balance Sheets).
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade who is responsible for securing compliance with the law

    419
    in respect of limited liability companies as regards the presentation of balance sheets and the making of other prescribed returns; and if he will submit a statement giving particulars of defaulting companies in this respect during the last five years, and the action taken by or on behalf of the Government thereon.?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The filing of returns required from companies under the Companies (Consolidation) Ad, 1908, is enforced by the Board of Trade. I am circulating with the Votes a statement giving particulars as to the number of defaults in this respect, with regard to which the Registrar found it necessary to communicate with the companies concerned, and the action taken during the last five years.—[See Written Answers this date.]

    Port of London Authority.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Board of Trade are taking under the Port of London Act, 1908, to make regulations for the election of members to the Port of London Authority; and whether, in view of the public importance of any such regulations, he will afford the House an opportunity of considering them before any regulations are finally made?
    Mr. BUXTON: The draft regulations have been prepared, and I propose to confer with representatives of the Port of London Authority and other bodies interested on the subject with a view to issuing the regulations at an early date. I do not think it is necessary to depart from the usual practice in regard to regulations made by the Board under the Port of London Act.

    Trent Canal (Harecastle Tunnels).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations as to the condition of the Harecastle tunnels on the Trent and Mersey Canal; whether he is aware that at present traffic may be interrupted causing loss to the trade of North Staffordshire; whether the Board of Trade can bring any pressure to bear upon the railway company owning the canal to proceed with the reconstruction of this canal; and, if not, will he advise the Development Commissioners as to the state of affairs and leave them to take the necessary steps to secure the permanence
    420
    of this trade route independently of the railway company?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have received no recent representations with regard to these tunnels, but I am aware that they are liable to suffer from subsidences due to mining operations. I am not in a position to require the railway company to reconstruct the canal, and I understand that the case is not one in which an advance could be granted from the Development Fund.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports from two engineers as to an alternative route, and will he approve of the Development Commissioners making a Grant for this purpose if approached by the local authorities?
    Mr. BUXTON: The matter is outside the operations of the Development Commissioners.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would the Development Commissioners be prepared to consider the construction of an alternative route?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot ask what the Development Commissioners would do in certain circumstances.

    Weights and Measures.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the general desire amongst traders for a uniform system of weights and measures; and if he will ascertain the best system and take steps to bring it into use?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply to a question on the same subject given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire on 5th December last, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    Telephone Service.
    Sir FREDERICK CAWLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether the chief operators at sub-telephone exchanges when transferred from the larger exchanges were assured that they would not lose their seniority for obtaining super- visorships in the large offices; whether promotion is now permanently barred to those operators, although they were given supervising duties in the smaller offices on account of special efficiency; whether at sub-exchanges the maximum for chief

    421
    operators has been reduced; and whether the staff at sub-post offices are now only being paid time and a-half for Sunday duty and time and a-quarter for ordinary overtime, as against double time and time and a-half paid by the National Telephone Company?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am not aware that the National Telephone Company gave any definite assurance to operators transferred from large to small exchanges. On transfer to the Post Office these operators were included in the class of Post Office telephonists doing similar work, and they enjoy the same prospects of advancement. The company had no fixed maximum for chief operators at small exchanges, but the pay of chief operators in the majority of cases falls within the Post Office scale. The Post Office rates for Sunday duty and overtime are as stated. These rates are those recommended by the Parliamentary Committee.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the telephone wires and poles in and around the City of York were damaged by a snow storm on the 11th January, and that disorganisation of the telephone service in the city has now prevailed for over a week, causing loss and inconvenience to householders, traders, and others; whether any steps have yet been taken to make good the damage, and at what date is it expected that the usual service will be resumed; whether he is aware that on former occasions, when more severe snow storms and gales occurred, the damage was made good more rapidly than on the present occasion; and whether he will explain the causes of the present delay in repairing the damage?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that more severe damage has occurred at York and the surrounding district during recent years than was done by the recent storm, having regard to the extent of the area affected and the large proportion of telephone and telegraph wires which were broken down. The ordinary telephone maintenance staff in York was largely increased by drafts from other districts, and the work of repair is being pressed on with the utmost expedition. It is expected that the whole of the telephone subscribers' circuits in York will be in working order by the end of this week.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Postmaster-General the total mileage of underground cables in England, and the cost incurred in laying them, indicating the respective figures in each case for the main line from Penzance to Gretna riâ London, and of all the other lines in England apart from this main line; and if he will also give the same figures for the lines laid down in Scotland?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The total length of the main underground routes is 1,197 miles in England, and 133 miles in Scotland. The total expenditure under the Post Office Votes and the Telephone capital account has been about £2,100,000. The expenditure on the routes in the two countries has been approximately proportionate to the mileage, but such a comparison would be misleading in a discussion of the relative benefits to Scotland and England. A large proportion of the underground wires between London and the border are used for telegrams to and from Scotland. Besides the circuits serving Glasgow and Edinburgh in the main underground route from London, there are four circuits containing eight wires serving Aberdeen and Dundee. It would be a matter of some difficulty to give in exact detail the other figures suggested by the hon. Member, though I should be happy to do so if any useful purpose could be served.
    Mr. PIRIE: What I want are the figures for England divided into two, the total miles of the main line from Penzance to Gretna, via London, and the total mileage of subsidiary lines apart from that?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is rather difficult to disentangle the figures, but I will obtain them for the hon. Member.
    Mr. PIRIE: I will repeat the question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice—Can he say will it be necessary for the House to meet in the interval between the Adjournment in February and the date which may be fixed for the Prorogation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In the event of the House of Lords amending any of the Bills which may have been sent up to them, it will be necessary for the House of Commons to assemble some time before the Prorogation, in order that the Amendments may be duly considered by this House.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I desire, with the indulgence of the House, to ask permission to make a personal explanation, and to call attention to a speech delivered by a Member of this House which seriously reflected on the reputation of myself and some of my colleagues. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Wolverhampton (Colonel Hickman) addressed a meeting in St. Martin's Schools, Bradley, on last Friday night, and, after referring to the fact that he went over to Ulster to study the Irish question, that he remained there from Friday until Monday, and that he had worked hard during all that period, the report proceeds to state:—
  "Colonel Hickman created some sensation by reading the oath which he said he is informed is the one taken by the members of the Nationalist organisation of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the president of which he mentioned incidentally is Mr. Devlin, who, although the best orator in the Nationalist party, had not been allowed to speak during the Home Rule Debates, because he was too likely to blurt out the truth. In this oath he was informed the Ancient Order of Hibernians pledged themselves to wade knee-deep in Orange blood, and he heard that they considered it no crime to slaughter Protestants and destroy their churches. When the people of Ulster believed that that was in an oath taken by these Nationalists, was it not reasonable that they dreaded the consequences of a Parliament in which they would be outnumbered by the disparity of thirty-four members compared with 128?"
  I have to state to the House that every imputation contained in that speech which I have read is absolutely untrue. This is not the first time I have publicly contradicted these allegations. This oath has
  444
  been, I understand, printed and circulated at every by-election in England. During the Crewe election in July last a leaflet was circulated among the electors giving this as the Ancient Order of Hibernians' oath.
  Mr. MOORE: Yes, and proved at the Parnell Commission on oath by Michael Davitt.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I then sent a telegram to the following effect:—
  "Please denounce handbill containing alleged oath by Ancient Order of Hibernians as an infamous falsehood. There is not a word of truth in it from beginning to end."
  Notwithstanding that and numerous other contradictions, the hon. Gentleman has repeated the allegation regarding the alleged oath. I have the honour to be president of that organisation. I have now once again to declare that the whole thing is an absolute concoction from beginning to end. No such oath is taken by the members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. I am speaking as president of the organisation, and I never even heard of the oath. I go further, and I state to the House that no oath of any sort or kind is taken by the members. There is not a particle of truth in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated in his speech, and which he said he was told, but which he should not, in my judgment, have circulated on his responsibility. I am sure that the House will now be delighted to hear what explanation the hon. and gallant Gentleman has to make.
  Colonel HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and with the indulgence of the House, I should like to be allowed to say a few words in reply to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. In doing so, I should wish to assure him in the most earnest manner that anything I said on Thursday was meant in no sense to be discourteous to him personally, and in anything I did say on that occasion I said what I thought to be common knowledge on matters of public interest in this House and in the country and, also, that to the best of my belief I stated nothing that was not absolutely true. I was commenting on the difference between the tone of the speeches of the Nationalist Members made in America and in Ireland in the past and of those delivered in the House of Commons at the present time on the Home Rule Bill. I said that at the present time in the House of Commons

  445
  the speeches of Nationalist Members were marked by great efforts at conciliation, and, under that heading, I noticed that the hon. Gentleman, with his passionate and fiery eloquence, was much missed during those Debates, and that he has not been in the habit of speaking on the Bill. Therefore, I naturally argued that the Home Rule party thought that better. If that is not true, if that is an exaggeration, I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman will believe me when I say that I am sorry I have said so. At the same time, with regard to the oath of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, I can only say that this oath, as the hon. Member has said, was circulated all over the country. In common with nearly all other Members and candidates at the last General Election, I received a copy of this particular oath. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where did you get it?"] I cannot tell. It is nearly two years ago; I cannot remember where I got it. I should like to ask, if this is not the particular oath of the order for members joining, whether the hon. Gentleman can supply to the House the actual oath they do take.
  Mr. DEVLIN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had listened to my statement, he would have heard me say that no oath of any sort or kind is taken.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I should have said declaration. May I ask the hon. Member if there is no declaration—[An HON. MEMBER: "Obligation."]—no obligation of any sort which the members are supposed to take?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker; if the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires it, I will read it to the House to-morrow.
  Colonel HICKMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman oblige the House by reading it now?
  Mr. DEVLIN: I shall read it if I can find it in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] What is the cause of this surprise? I gave the hon. Gentleman notice; he did not give me notice that he would ask for the declaration.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are now getting into a wrangle. This is not a personal explanation.
  Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, instead of doing what I expected he would do—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has made his statement, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made his, and there the matter must end.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully point out that in the course of his explanation he repeated another statement that is absolutely untrue.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a proper observation to make. We cannot argue this matter out now. I would point out to the hon. Member that no Question is before the House. The hon. Member wished to make a personal explanation; he was listened to, and his personal explanation no doubt was accepted.
  Mr. DEVLIN: It was not accepted.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman rose to make his statement— [An HON. MEMBER: "He has not finished"]—in reply. The House has heard him, and, therefore, the matter is concluded, and the House can form its own judgment.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: May I, Mr. Speaker, respectfully address a question: to you on this matter? Is it not usual in this House that when a Member, either by wrong information supplied to him or for any other reason, makes a statement about another hon. Member which that hon. Member repudiates and says is untrue—is it not usual for the hon. Member who made the original statement to accept the denial? In this case the hon. Member stated that this was the oath that the hon. Member for Belfast and his associates took. The Member for Belfast stated that it is not so, and that there is no such oath. Under those circumstances, is it not usual for Members of this House to accept a statement of that kind?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman did accept the statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Perhaps the House will kindly listen to what I say: He said, if there was no oath, was there any declaration or obligation of some kind? The hon. Member for Belfast said there was, and at the proper time he would produce it, as he had not got it with him now. There the matter rests, and I do not see how we can, without any Motion or any issue being raised, pursue the matter any further. The House must judge of what has occurred.

  "TRAITOE."
  Mr. WHYTE: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether an expression used by the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division of Shropshire (Mr. Hunt) at Question Time was in order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear him. He was trying to say something, but the interruption in the House prevented my hearing him.
  Mr. WHYTE: May I ask you, Sir, whether the application by one hon. Member of this House to another right hon. Member of the word "traitor" is in order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members know that it is not, and when I did hear that observation used once, about two months ago, or rather more, I at once took notice of it.

  FACTORIES.
  Mr. CROOKS: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Factory Acts in relation to hours of labour."
  4.0.P.M.
  The object of this Bill is to amend the Factory Acts in one particular. At the present moment under the law women and young persons who are tailoresses work from eight o'clock to eight o'clock including meal times, and until four o'clock on Saturday. The House will be alive at once to the fact of how tremendously long those hours are. I hope we have long got past the time when we shall be told that they have their own remedy with regard to those hours. There never can be an amendment of the wages or the shortening of hours without calling on the women and young persons to starve unless by Act of Parliament, and this Bill is to enable them to get shorter hours. This Bill will endeavour to reduce the hours from what are now known as ten and a-half hours down to nine. The Bill is limited to women and young persons engaged in the tailoring trade, and it provides also that notices of rates of wages shall be exhibited in a conspicuous place in the workshops. So far as the large employers are concerned they see the advantage of shortening the hours in many instances, and with them they run from eight o'clock in the morning until seven o'clock in the evening, and, except when they work overtime, they are expected to work eight and a-half hours. This House will readily understand that that is much too long for women to be compelled to
  448
  work in a monotonous kind of existence in stuffy rooms with little or no relief. The outworkers are still worse, and are worked to the utmost limits of the law. They compel those poor creatures to work from eight o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock at night to obtain a pittance, and when they cannot earn enough they may work a few hours longer. Those of us who are interested in trying to preserve the health of the race think that at least we might reduce those hours to a reasonable proportion. There are thousands of women who are appealing for this, and I hope the time will soon pass away when for the sake of obtaining better conditions people will be called upon to strike, and I trust that we may be able from time to time to amend laws under which women and young persons work so that they may have at least a decent existence.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crooks, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Gill, Mr. Hills, Mr. John Lyttelton, Mr. Parker, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. Glanville, and Mr. Charles Duncan. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 10th February, and to be printed. [Bill 352.]

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Further considered in Committee.
  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
    FIFTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY— [Progress, 21st January.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 35—(Interpretation.)
    (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
    The expression "existing" means existing at the passing of this Act:
    The expression "ecclesiastical office" means any bishopric, ecclesiastical dignity, or preferment within the meaning of the Church Discipline Act, 1840, and includes any lay office in connection therewith, or in connection with any cathedral corporation:
    The expression "cathedral corporation" means any dean and chapter, and also any corporation of minor canons, or vicars choral, or any

    449
    other subordinate corporation of or belonging to or connected with any cathedral or collegiate church in Wales:
    The expression "ecclesiastical person" means a bishop and the holder of any ecclesiastical office who is in holy orders:
    The expression "right of patronage" includes any advowson, right of presentation, or right of nomination to an ecclesiastical office:
    The expression "synod" includes any assembly or convention:
    The expression "property" includes all property, real and personal, including things in action and rights of action; and where any property is held in trust for or for the benefit of the holder of any ecclesiastical office as such, or for any cathedral or ecclesiastical corporation, that property shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to belong to that office or corporation; and the burial ground of any ecclesiastical parish shall, unless provided under the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1906, or the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1S79, or otherwise vested in any local or other public authority, be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be property belonging to an ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales:
    The expression "church" includes cathedral and other churches, chapels of ease, and other public chapels of the Church in Wales and in the case of a cathedral church includes the chapter house and cloisters and other precincts of the cathedral church:
    The expression "ecclesiastical residence" means any parsonage house and any house of residence of any bishop or member or officer of a cathedral corporation and any offices belonging thereto:
    The expression "house" includes any curtilage or garden appurtenant to the house:
    The expression "burial authority" means any burial board and any council, committee, or other local authority having the powers and duties of a burial board under the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1906, and any local authority maintaining a ceme-
    450
    tery under the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879, or under any local Act:
    The expression "tithe rent-charge" includes all payments in lieu of or in the nature of tithes or tithe rent-charge:
    The expressions "first fruits" and "tenths" include any sums payable in lieu of first fruits and tenths:
    The expression "county" includes a county borough, and the expression "county council" includes the council of a county borough, and "county fund" in relation to a county borough means the borough fund or borough rate.
    (2) Property shall not for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be situate in Wales or Monmouthshire by reason only of being invested in the stocks, funds, or securities of any company owning property so situate.
    (3) In all enactments, deeds, and other documents in which mention is made of the Church of England, the enactments and provisions relating thereto shall be construed as including the Church in Wales, but as to that Church subject to the provisions of this Act.
    Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words "passing of this Act" ["existing at the passing of this Act"], to insert the words "The expression 'cease to be Established by law' means cease to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been conferred upon the Church by Statute and which are not possessed or enjoyed in like manner and degree by any other religious body in Wales and Monmouthshire."
    The object of this Amendment is to endeavour to get some definition of Disestablishment or, as the Bill expresses it, "cease to be Established by law. "This Bill deals with three distinct things as regards the Church, it Disendows it and it dismembers it, and it Disestablishes it. We all know what Disendow means—there is no question about that. We all can understand what dismember means, there is no question about that. When we come to Disestablishment we really never had any explanation from the Government as to what is meant by Disestablishment, and we say before you proceed further with this Bill it is necessary to put some definition of Disestablishment into it. In the case of the

    451
    Church of Ireland, and this has been mentioned before, the same difficulty did not arise. The Church of Ireland was a Church definitely established by Statute. The Act of Union which united the Church of Ireland with the Church of England was the Act which established by law the Church of Ireland, and it was perfectly easy when Disestablishment took place to say precisely what was meant and to specify the Statutes which were repealed. As a matter of fact, those Statutes were read out in the House of Commons when the Bill was first brought in. In the case of Wales nothing of the kind has taken place, and we are at this moment absolutely in the dark as to what precisely is meant by Disestablishment. May I remind the Home Secretary that by implication he suggested in a previous Debate that the time might come when it would be right and proper to define what is meant by Disestablishment. Speaking on 5th December, on the first Clause on an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Campion), he said:—
    "The hon. Member really asks us to give an elucidation of the views of the Government on Establishment. I answer by staying it would be hardly relevant to this part of the Debate."
    I think it was hardly relevant to that part of the Bill, but it certainly seems to be relevant to some later stage of the Bill, and I submit it is quite relevant that we should have a definition of Disestablishment now that we have reached the Interpretation Clause. There are many difficulties connected with it. One difficulty is this that I think the word is used in a totally different sense by Members on the two sides of the House. Let me explain what I mean. By Establishment we mean on this side really what I believe is the correct interpretation and translation of the Latin expression. We mean the Church as recognised by the State, or, if I may put it so, confirmed in its position and status by the State. I believe that is the correct definition. But on the other side the word is used in a totally different sense, if not in this House, at all events in the country, and the common thing that is said in the country is that the State at some time or other Established the Church, that it set up the Church, and that the Establishment of the Church was the creation of the State. I venture to say that that is a most untrue and unhistorical way of putting it, and that it cannot be maintained for a single instant. It would
    452
    be really far truer to say that the Church Established the State than that the State Established the Church. I need only remind the Home Secretary that the union of the separate bishoprics of the Anglo-Saxons took place under Archbishop Theodore at the end of the seventh century, or 150 years before the union of the heptarchy became the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom. Therefore the union of the Churches preceded the union of the State and pointed the way.
    I think we may thus more truly say that the State was Established by the Church rather than that the Church was Established by the State. So is it true as regards the particular union that is implied in the Establishment of union between the Church in Wales and the Church in England. Here, again, the union of the two Churches precedes the political union of the Kingdom, and therefore I submit that the common view of the expression that at. Some period or another the Church was Established by the State is quite untrue and unhistorical. Now that we are dealing with Disestablishment, it is reasonable we should have a correct definition put in the Bill so that we should really know what we are doing. There is another difficulty which is a real, practical difficulty of a very considerable kind. It is held by many jurists and others, and though I do not pretend to be an authority I think there is a great deal to be said for the opinion, that the Church is not at all the only religious body which is Established in this country. At all events, since the Toleration Act dissenters have been Established. I need only remind the Committee of the well-known saying of Lord Mansfield that "the dissenting way of worship is Established." There are many instances of Establishment of Nonconformity that are well-known to all of us. There is the well-known law that Nonconformist chapels, like the churches, are exempted from the payment of rates, so long as they are used exclusively for religious purposes. I am bound to say that particular limitation is much more honoured in many cases in the breach than in the observance. I have got here a list of lectures held at Whitefield's Tabernacle, which is exempt from rates, an incident of Establishment, on the theory that it is only used for religious purposes. I find, among other lectures, one by Mr. J. A. Baker, M.P., "How I won East Fins-bury," and another by the Rev. John Clifford, "A Christian Budget," and

    453
    another by the Rev. C. S. Home on "Land Values," and another by Mr. E. G. Hemmerde on "The Lords and the People."
    I say therefore that it seems to me that this particular limitation that is put upon the freedom from liability to pay rates, which is an incident of the Establishment of Nonconformity, is certainly in this particular case anyhow more honoured in the breach than in the observance. It only proves my point that unless we define what we mean by Disestablishment we must realise that the Church is not the only Established body and Nonconformists are in a sense also Established. We have also got the case of the United Methodist Church Act of 1907. Three separate religious bodies came to Parliament to obtain an Act of Union. That Act, which united them and subject to which they now hold their property, was undoubtedly an Act of Establishment by this House. If, therefore, you are going to Disestablish the Church in Wales I want to know what you mean. Are you going to Disestablish it in the sense in which other bodies are now Established, or are you only going to differentiate between the Church and other bodies? If you are only going to differentiate, then I think you must say so. If you say so, you must have some definition of what you mean by Disestablishment. That is why I have put down the Amendment stating that the expression "ceases to be Established by law" would mean—
    "Cease to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been conferred upon the Church by Statute, and which are not possessed or enjoyed in like manner and degree by any other religious body in Wales and Monmouthshire,"
    to show that the Government do not mean to take away from the Church all those incidents of Establishment that now belong to other bodies. If so, you put the Church in an inferior position, and you put her practically outside the law altogether. I suppose you still intend to protect the Church in her rights and privileges by the law, but if so you must say so, as otherwise it seems to me you put her outside the law. What is this differentiation to be? One of the great difficulties we have always had outside of the House is to find out, at all events as regards Establishment, what are the grievances felt by the other side. What are the particular
    454
    privileges, if you like to call them so, or what is the status enjoyed by the Church which is felt to be a grievance because it is not equally enjoyed by other bodies? The Under-Secretary some time ago mentioned four points: first, that the Church is the only body whose ministers can be called legally clerks in Holy Orders; secondly, that it is the only body which has its Ecclesiastical Courts recognised by the State and whose decisions are enforceable by the State; thirdly, that the bishops sit in the House of Lords; and fourthly, that only the Archbishop of Canterbury can crown His Majesty the King. It is rather remarkable that of those four grievances, the only four that he mentioned, two are not touched by this Bill at all. The bishops will still sit in the House of Lords. It is true that the four Welsh bishops will not, but the English bishops will. Therefore the Bill does not touch that grievance. As to crowning His Majesty the King, I do not see how that could possibly be affected by the Established Church (Wales) Bill. The Home Secretary on a previous occasion mentioned a further point. He said that one of the marks of Establishment of which we ought to get rid is the fact that the Prayer Book of the Church is settled by Parliament. I demur entirely to that view. It is quite true that the Prayer Book is in a sense a Schedule to an Act of Parliament, but it was settled originally in Convocation and then confirmed by Act of Parliament. After all, Nonconformists are in precisely the same position in respect to their trust deeds. Their trust deeds as a rule specify what their religious services shall be, and if they break their trust deeds they have to come to Parliament; otherwise they lose their properly. Although not exactly in the same way, the ultimate sanction is the same. They have equally to come to Parliament if they wish to vary their doctrines, otherwise they lost their property.
    I say, therefore, that we want some definition of the attributes of Establishment in regard to which the Church differs from other bodies, and of which you wish to get rid by this Bill. By Disestablishment do you mean to get rid of something which exists merely by Statute law, or of something much older, belonging to the Church by civil, canon, or common law? It is a very important point whether the attributes which you call Establishment by law belong to a remote period, and

    455
    have come down, so to speak, by tradition, or whether they have been definitely conferred upon the Church by Act of Parliament. I have not the least idea of what is in the mind of the Government. But I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking on the Second Beading of this Bill, relying on a passage by Professor Maitland, said that the first thing that happened at the Reformation was that the Church was Established as a State Church for the first time. If that is so, if the Church was not a State Church before the Reformation, it follows of necessity that the status of the State Church is conferred by the Reformation Statutes and by Statutes which may have been passed subsequently. If that is so, we are perfectly justified in asking that those Statutes should be put down in black and white as a Schedule of the Bill, so that we may know precisely what Statutes are repealed. That was the course followed in the Irish Church case, and we are entitled to ask, if it is really a case of repealing Statutes, that the Statutes to be repealed should be stated, or, if they are to be repealed only in part, we should be told how much of those Statutes is to be repealed. There is a further consideration which perhaps is not so much a legal point as a matter that may concern the whole future of religion in this country. Is it intended by Disestablishment to get rid altogether of what I may call the national recognition of religion in Wales? Is that the idea at which the Government are aiming? Is the State in Wales to be entirely divorced from religion? Is there to be no recognition, or, it may be, a recognition of more than one specific form of religion? Is there to be a complete barrier between the State and religion, or is there to be a recognition of religious life? I was reading the other day a very interesting book by the Rev. Montague Bradley, a Nonconformist minister, who is strongly opposed to this Bill. Mr. Bradley says:—
    "The ideal of the Church is apparently the old ideal of the State recognition of the Church and nothing else. The ideal of Nonconformists is apparently full equality and no recognition. Is there not something between? Cannot the State, in some way or another, instead of merely recognising one religion or recognising none, extend the recognition to every form of Christian religion in Wales, and in the country generally? "
    In other words, can we not arrive at something in the nature of what may be called concurrent Establishment? This matter is of great importance, having regard to the future of the whole nation. The late
    456
    Lord Selborne, writing some years ago on this very question, said:—
    "A nation into whose organic life the public recognition of Christianity has entered during all the ages of its existence could not divest all its institutions of the outward and visible signs of that recognition without practically, to a great extent, exalting secularism to the disparagement of religion."
    Is that the ideal of hon. Members opposite in pressing this Bill? Is it an attempt to exalt secularism to the disparagement of religion? If not, you must clearly define what you mean by Disestablishment. We on this side have not the least idea what is meant by Disestablishment, and before we pass the Bill we are entitled to an explanation.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Nobody can deny that the words "Established by law" are exceedingly difficult to define in any form or phrase. The definition which the hon. Member proposes is in a negative form. If any definition were to be accepted and inserted in the Bill, which, for my part, I should certainly deprecate, it could not in any circumstances be of the kind here proposed. We could not say "cease to be Established by law" means certain things. We should have to say that "Establishment by law" means certain things. We should have to put it in a positive form. If the hon. Member would convert his definition into a positive form he would see at once that it was one that he would be most unwilling to accept. The hon. Gentleman has put various questions to me in order, as he says, to elucidate what is in the mind of the Government when we speak of the Disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales. Various attempts have been made at different times to give a definition of the word "Establishment." In a recent case in the Law Courts, I think in 1907, a learned judge attempted to do so in these terms:—
    "Establishment means that the State has accepted the Church as the religious body which, in its opinion, truly teaches the Christian faith."
    I think myself that that view of Establishment is one which would ordinarily be accepted as right. Establishment by law, at any rate, connotes the idea that the State in its corporate capacity has accepted the Church which is Established as that Church which is truly teaching the Christian faith. I would suggest to Churchmen that the acceptance of that view of Establishment is the acceptance

    457
    of an idea which cannot fail to be wounding to the susceptibilities of Nonconformists, who think that their Churches are at least equally to be judged as teaching the true form of Christian faith. If Establishment is to be accepted as conveying a meaning of that kind, then, in my judgment, we ought to insert in the Bill words declaring that the State in its corporate form no longer distinguishes between different forms of teaching of the Christian faith by preferring one to the others as being the nearest to the truth. I put it in a negative rather than in a positive form when I say "if" we are to interpret the meaning of Establishment. I suggest that it would be most undesirable to attempt anything of the sort. The words "Established by law" have been used again and again in Acts of Parliament. They have actually been used in canons of the Church. As far back as the time of Elizabeth the words are used. In 23 Elizabeth, cap. I, we have the words "religion now by Her Highness's authority Established." In 12 and 13 William III, cap. 2, the Act of Settlement, the Church of England is described as "the Church of England as by law Established. "In 13 William III., cap. 6, the same words are used. In 2 and 3 Anne, cap. 11, the Church of England is described as "the Church by law Established." In 5 Anne, cap. 2, and in several other cases, even as late as 33 and 31 Victoria, cap. 91—that is 1870—the same formula is used. In not one of those Acts is the formula "the Church of England as by law Established" defined. Parliament has meant something, and Parliament has used the phrase as meaning something. But no definition has ever been inserted in the Acts, nor has Parliament ever pretended to be capable of defining its precise meaning. I am sure that, Parliament would never have inserted the words in a solemn Act unless it had meant something. Let me give an illustration of the unwisdom of attempting to define "Establishment" in this Bill. I would only refer to the speech of the hon. Member himself. He says, in his judgment, Nonconformity is Established. If Nonconformity is Established then the definition which we are to insert in the Bill must include that attribute which he described as Establishment in the case of the Nonconformists. To define Establishment we must introduce into the meaning of Establishment those attributes which belong to Nonconformity.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I explain I What I said was this: if it is
    458
    held, as it may be held, that Nonconformity is Established, then, if you are Disestablishing the Church, it should mean in those respects in which the other bodies are not Established.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's explanation helps us, as he puts the matter in a hypothetical form now. He says, "if Nonconformity is Established," we shall have to clear up that doubt—if it be a doubt.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: You do not admit it?
    Mr. McKENNA: Of course I do not. In the earlier Acts "Established" meant "permitted." Nonconformity is Established, because in the hon. Gentleman's view chapels are exempted from rates. Then exemption from rates is a mark of Establishment?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Endowment!
    Mr. McKENNA: It might be argued that Endowment would be a mark of Establishment. The hon. Member says, in regard to the Free Scottish Churches, who were only allowed to hold property in common, that the condition of holding property in common constitutes Establishment. Is that not really an answer to his point t The moment we endeavour to define, to put words into this Act, defining Establishment, we shall get ourselves into difficulties. How can we suffer if we do not define t I have given instances of the use of the term "Established by law" in Acts of Parliament. If we do not define, I say that practically the meaning that the phrase "Established by law" has in those Acts of Parliament which I have quoted holds. When we say in this Bill that the Church shall "cease to be Established by law," all we say is whatever meaning attaches to these words in the earlier Acts, that meaning, those attributes of the Church shall cease to exist in the future. We do not pretend to define Establishment. If we do not pretend to put on paper the whole scope and meaning of the words "legally Established"—which, of course, have got no relation whatever to the spiritual origin of the Church and nothing whatever to do with it—whatever those words include, they certainly embrace the principle features of the Church, all of which are dealt with in this Bill. The most important principle of them all is that which

    459
    was described by Lord Selborne in his book on the "Defence of the English Church." He says:—
    "The Established Church by law consists essentially in the incorporation of the law of the Church into that of the realm as a branch of the general law of the realm, though limited to the Ecclesiastical Courts and persons to whom it applies—"
    I would like to stop there, and say that the incorporation is not merely the incorporation by Statute; consequently the definition named would not Disestablish the Church in its most essential feature as defined by Lord Selborne, who goes on to say—
    "in the public recognition of these Courts and judges as having proper legal jurisdiction, and in the enforcement of the sentences of those Courts, when duly pronounced according to law by the civil power."
    All those attributes of Establishment which Lord Selborne described as most essential are all by this Bill specifically taken away from the Church of England in Wales. I think it will be found that each particular attribute of a specific kind is specifically dealt with by special Clauses in the Bill. The Bill could not specifically take away such an attribute as Establishment as was given in the judgment of the learned Judge in the case of Marshall versus Graham, which I have just quoted. It is for reasons of that kind, implying a preference for, and an attribution to the Church, that it has a prior claim upon allegiance, that its doctrines ought to be believed more readily than the doctrines of another Church, that the Church as by law Established shall cease to exist, and it is the more essential that these words should not be omitted.
    There is one other point—the answer to which I put forward tentatively in view of the several legal Gentlemen opposite who are versed in ecclesiastical law—and that is that at the present time a person who has been baptised—I am not sure whether it is not every person who is a Christian—but at least every person who has been baptised according to the rites of the Church of England is, as to his legal status, a member of the Church of England. No matter what his religious belief may hereafter become he remains legally a member of the Church of England. In Wales, after Disestablishment, I do not think that legal status will continue. But it is a difficult point. I think it is so that in England any person who has been baptised in the Church, no matter what he becomes subsequently, whether he fails to be confirmed or whether he openly joins one of the Non-
    460
    conformist Churches, still has the legal status of a member of the Church of England. In Wales he will not have this. That will certainly be one of the most marked effects of the Disestablishment of the Church. Whether it be so or otherwise, it is certainly, in my judgment, most desirable that we should retain, as we have done in Clause 1 of the Bill, the words "shall cease to be Established by law." It would be very undesirable to do what no Act of Parliament has hitherto done—attempt to define the meaning of the words "Established by law."
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I think that the speech made by the Home Secretary shows the extreme importance—though I think differently to him—of having a proper definition of the words "shall cease to be Established by law." I would point out to the Home Secretary that as regards those preceding Acts to which he has called attention, it was not necessary that you should have a definition, because you included under the term a vast collection of rights and privileges, partly from the civil law, partly from the canon law, partly from the common law, and partly from the Statute law. It was quite unnecessary therefore—in fact I think it would have been difficult at that stage— to have had any exact definition. What are we doing now? We are considering a Disestablishment Bill. One essential point which everyone should know—I am not now speaking from a religious standpoint, but from the ordinary standpoint of those who have to live under Statute law—is, What is the meaning, or what is brought about by those terms which are brought into operation as terms of effective definition for the first time in a Bill of this kind? Just let me, before I come to give the difference in my view between "Establishment" and "Established by law," give one or two instances in which a difficulty will arise without we have got a definition. The Home Secretary himself, towards the end of his speech, referred to one of those points about which we have asked questions many times in this House, namely, What is the difference in the status and position of the parishioner after this Bill has passed to what it is at the present time? That is a question of first importance.
    Just the same when we were talking about churchyards and churches, the right hon. Gentleman used again and again the terms that the rights that now exist were

    461
    to be preserved, as regards special interests, in the future. What does the Home Secretary mean by those rights which are to be preserved? We know what he means by "ceasing to be Established by law." I should have thought there would have been no great, no real, difficulty as regards a definition, because I imagine what the Home Secretary means in this Bill is not that the Church is to be Disestablished in the sense that there is to be no Established Church in the future at all. I will point out why I think that in a moment. But so far as the Church at the present time has certain statutory rights and statutory disabilities, they are to cease to exist, and the legal recognition of the Church by Statute, either to impose disabilities or to grant privileges—and the disabilities are quite as much as the privileges— are not to operate in the future. Is that really what the Home Secretary means? Directly we get outside that and deal with the question of Establishment, as apart from "Established by law," we get into a difficult topic, and one about which there should really not be dispute as between the two sides of the House. I do not at all agree with Lord Selborne's view that an Establishment, or even a legal Establishment depends upon such matters as Ecclesiastical Courts, or, as I think, was put by the Under-Secretary, upon such matters as to whether the bishops shall have a seat in the House of Lords or not. You may reconstitute your second chamber to-morrow without a single bishop in it. That would not affect Church Establishment any way, either as a religious body or as a body recognised by law for certain purposes. It would not affect us at all. Many Churchmen—perhaps I might say I am one—wyould be glad to see the bishops dissociated from political life altogether. It does not matter one way or the other in relation to the points that we are dealing with now. So, too, with regard to the Ecclesiastical Courts. It only means this: whether you have a Church constitution or a voluntary association.
    The ultimate sanction is to be found, not in Courts—I might prefer an Ecclesiastical Court, I may have a tendency, as some people say, in that direction from one's experience of those Courts—but that really is not the crucial point at all. You might have a Church without any of those mere incidents, as I call them, such as bishops and Ecclesiastical Courts, yet you
    462
    might have the real essence of Establishment. The real essence of Establishment is the alliance in some form or other between the Church and the State, so that, so far as the State is concerned, it may have in various ways acknowledged recognition of religious rights and of religious duties in a great variety of directions. One has not exactly read these matters up for this purpose, and I am dealing with what the Home Secretary said. Suppose you take Hooker's definition, or suppose you take that of Warburton, or that of Tait, The Courts, as we know, rely upon the co-existence of the Church and State, and Warburton's position is alliance between the two in his view, to the advantage of both. I have my own strong views that it is to the advantage of the State that Establishment in that sense should be maintained. You want, in my mind, a Christian State and not a secular State, and I know no way of creating that except by using the term "Establishment" or "Established by law." Of course, the Church by itself is much more free merely as a religious body without its connection with the State. We all admit that. I think the best form of connection is the Scotch form, because in religious and spiritual matters the Scotch are really independent, and no one is more strongly in favour of reform in that direction than I am. You may have this alliance constituted and existing. I think it is essential it should exist. If you want to change it by all means reform it, but do not destroy it. That is a very important matter when we come to the question of Establishment. I entirely agree with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley, and Lord Mansfield. It is quite clear that the term "Establishment" per se as part of the words "Established by law" is equally applicable to the great Nonconformist communities as to the Church. I do not think anyone will doubt that. Taking the word Establishment merely by itself, it means constituted in accordance with legal authority which did not exist as regards the great Nonconformist communities before the Toleration Act. But it is quite right that ever since that Act of 1669 you cannot draw a distinction between the two except by using the words "Established by law," and that means that in order to preserve the alliance between Church and State the Church has certain responsibilities or what some people would call privileges, but which I hardly regard from that point of view.

    463
    Let me say a word upon the religious side—not strictly religious. If you want a definition of what Churchmen mean by Church, if you look at the XlXth Article you will find that in terms you get that definition. I do not: know whether the Home Secretary would think these Articles are abrogated and that when the Church is Disestablished it would no longer be bound by them, but when dealing with this Clause we have to consider the words "Established by law." What do we say? We say—
    "the physical Church is the creation of faithful men—
    that, of course, might equally apply to Nonconformist communities—
    "amongst whom the pure Word of God is preached."
    We may have some theological discussions as to what the "pure Word of God" consists of, but I give the same sincerity to my opponents as I claim for myself, and I am prepared to say that that is the spirit of any Church to which they belong, and the only other definition is that—
    "the congregation of faithful men must observe the sacraments according to the doctrines of Christ."
    There, again, we may have a difference as to what "the doctrines of Christ" are; but all Churches, according to their own view, would come within that definition. I have always said I would much prefer to have persons who sincerely differ in opinion in these things than to have those who give mere lip-service. If I am right as to what I call "Established," as distinct from "Established by law," there ought to be no difficulty in dealing with the definite point and trying to find something which, when it becomes operative, may have a meaning which people will understand, and if the definition of my hon. and gallant Friend is accepted, we shall know where we are, because that definition says this: The difference will be that anything earlier conferred by Statute which affect what I will call the Old Church as it exists now shall be eliminated from the future possession of the Church when it ceases to be Established by law. That, really, to a lawyer who has to interpret Acts of Parliament of this kind, makes the position perfectly clear—the difference is this: Those statutory rights or those statutory obligations are no longer to affect the Church in the future, and if you start from that, according to my view, a great many of those conundrums which have arisen in the course of these discussions upon this Bill in Committee would cease
    464
    to be conundrums at all. We should know that both those rights and disabilities or obligations would cease to exist. I admit that from one point of view we are dealing with a different matter, but legally we are not. A definition can be easily introduced; it ought to be introduced, because it runs through, as the Home Secretary said, a very large number of Sections in the Bill, and until it is introduced you will have elements either of contradiction or difficulty that will only lead to dispute, friction, and trouble in the future. It is on these grounds that I sincerely hope the Committee will accept our principle of definition, if not the actual words, which ought to be introduced into an Act of this character.
    Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES: The hon. and learned Member began his speech by saying there ought to be no dispute between the two sides of the House as to what Establishment means. I do not think there is any dispute amongst those who take pains to know, and amongst those I include the hon. and learned Member, what the existing law is. I have been at pains to try and find some legal authority that we might accept as expressing what the existing law in regard to the relations, shall I say of the State, or ought I, speaking more properly, to say the King, and the various religious societies that exist amongst us in the United Kingdom, or, more particularly, in Eng land and Wales. I am going to suggest to the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down and to the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment the authority of a proposition which is contained in a Compendium of the Laws of England published under the name and with the authority of Lord Halsbury. In that, which is accepted as a correct statement of the relations of the Sovereign or of the law towards the various religious societies which exist in this country, I find this proposal:—
    "All religions bodies enjoy the panic general recognition by law strengthened in the single case of the Church of England by the circumstances of its connection with the State."
    There we come to what my hon. and learned Friend correctly said is the essence of Establishment. A certain alliance between the State and particular religious bodies, and then Lord Halsbury goes on to say—
    "and modified in the case of other religious bodies by such special enactments as survive to mark in each case the history of its evolution,"

    465
    I conceive that is a legal proposition which will be accepted as true in the spiritual and the temporal sense of the word, and might be taken for the purposes of this discussion as a starting point. Conceding that proposition, what is the effect of this Bill as it stands? You must look, first of all, on this question of Disestablishment at Clause 1, and more especially after that at Clauses 2 and 3. What are the general effects of these Clauses? As I construe them, and taking this proposition as the true state of the law, it would make it necessary to eliminate from that proposition the words—
    "strengthened in the single case of the Church of England by the circumstances of its connection with the State "
    and when this Bill passes and a new edition of this work is called for, the proposition will have to be—
    "all religions bodies enjoy the same general recognition by law, modified in the case of all religious bodies by such special enactment as survive to mark in each case the history of its evolution."
    That, I beg leave to submit, is the effect of the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: Is that Lord Halsbury's "Laws of England"?
    Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES: Yes. In order to make one's meaning plain, one must take some proposition by way of illustration. I submit that proposition is a true exposition of the law, and, taking that, I ask myself if, and when, this Bill becomes law, what modification ought to be made in that proposition, and that is, as I have said, the general effect of the Bill would make it necessary to take out the words—
    "strengthened in the single case of the Church of England by the circumstances of its connection with the State."
    So the law, if this Bill passes in regard to religious bodies, would be summed up in the words—
    "all religious bodies enjoy the same general recognition by law, modified in the case of all religious bodies by such special enactments as survive to mark in each case the history of its evolution,"
    5.0 P.M.
    That is my general proposition, and if that is so is it necessary to go further? Is it in the interests of the Disestablished Church that they should go further? I quite agree that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment has enabled him to make a most interesting speech in regard to the meaning of the word "Establishment." I quite agree with him that a great many people on both sides of this controversy differ on that point, but we
    466
    are engaged in legislation, and I am sure he will agree with me that we ought to be as precise as we possibly can. That being so, let us see how the Bill will read if the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment were accepted. Clause 1 is the only Clause, so far as I can find out, in which the expression "cease to be Established by law" occurs. I do not find it in any other Clause in the Bill. Clause 1, as it stands, reads:—
    "On the first day of July next, after the passing of this Act, the Church of England, so far as it extends to and exists in Wales and Monmouthshire (in this Act referred to as the Church in Wales) shall cease to be Established by law."
    If the definition proposed by the hon. and gallant Member be accepted the Bill will read:—
    "Shall cease to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been conferred upon the Church by Statute, and which are not possessed or enjoyed in like manner and degree by any other religious body in Wales and Monmouthshire."
    Is that an advantage to the Established Church? Is the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley quite confident on that point? I should like to remind him that in the observations I have made on this and several other Clauses which have been under consideration during the last few days I have pointed out that they raise matters in which the Liberal Members are not greatly concerned, because they are rather matters for the consideration of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and we have affirmed over and over again with the full assent of the great majority of the Welsh people that these are matters for the Church herself to deal with, and we have refrained from putting into this Bill any restriction which would embarrass or hamper the Disestablished Church as a Free Church or a Free Society. I put it to the hon. and gallant Member whether this Amendment will be of any real advantage. If it is I think he ought to point out wherein the advantage lies. We believe that it will be detrimental to the people in Wales who may not become adherents of this new Church. I think the hon. and gallant Member ought to say candidly what is in his mind when he claims that there is going to be any advantage to the Disestablished Church from this elaborate definition of the meaning of the words

    467
    cease to be Established by law." If there is no real advantage to be derived from the insertion of these words in the Clause, then they will be merely verbiage.
    Sir A. GRIFF1TH-BOSCAWEN: We want to know where we stand. We do not know.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I have told the hon. and gallant Member where he stands, and I have told him on the authority of a die-hard, Lord Halsbury.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Will you put that definition into the Bill?
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The hon. and gallant Member must know that that is not a request which ought to be made in an Assembly which is anxious to proceed according to sound principles of legislation. There is no need, when bringing in a Bill, to remedy certain grievances, to put into that measure what is the law of the land in general. Reference was made by the Home Secretary to the fact that this raises questions of law. I have honestly endeavoured to state what my view about this matter is. After all, we are agreed that the words "cease to be Established by law" are general words, and I have given what I conceive to be the correct effect in the light of the existing law, and it is that, taking them as general words, the answer which I make to what I consider is not an unreasonable request in some respects, made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite is, that the words are defined partly by reference to the general proposition which I have laid down, and partly by the fact that they are made perfectly specific by the Clauses of the Bill. If you want to know what Disestablishment means, read the Bill. The Bill itself, by its apportionment of rights and duties and by its careful regard for every interest, is in itself an answer to the question: "What does Disestablishment mean?" May I again point out that the words preserve, if they preserve anything, the rights, not of the individuals, but the rights of the Church. The Amendment deals with the rights of the Church. The only part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps), the logic of which I could not follow, was that part in which he brought in the word "parishioner" which seemed to me a reflection of something relevant to the Amendments we discussed yester-
    468
    day and the day before, because, by no possibility would the addition of those words in any way affect the rights of the parishioners, and it could not affect the right of a single clergyman or bishop. The whole thing turns upon the general position of the Church considered as a society. The Church undoubtedly is the whole society of Christians within the realm considered from an ecclesiastical or a religious standpoint. I suppose that the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks and the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley when they talk of the Church mean the Church recognised by legal authority. If that is so the whole effect of this Amendment, if we accept it, would be as I conceive it to make the position of this new Free Church in Wales more dubious, whereas if the words are left exactly as they are it is perfectly clear that the effect of the Statute would be to put the Church in Wales in exactly the same position as far as historic and every other kind of circumstance will permit as the ordinary voluntary religious society. That is what we wish the position to be, and I assure the Committee, as I have done several times before, that as far as Welsh Liberal Members are concerned we wish to place no restriction upon the perfectly free action of the Church in Wales after this Bill comes into operation, and we are quite adverse to doing anything which would tend to hamper the Disestablished Church.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: This is a discussion of some importance. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Bucks and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) agree that we are criticising a Bill. Now I do not agree with either of (hem on that point, because I think we are criticising intermittently and in a fragmentary fashion a Ministerial decree. I cannot call this a Bill in view of the way it has been treated and the manner in which it is being carried through Parliament. It is nevertheless important that we should avail ourselves of such opportunities of criticism as are allowed to us to make it clear, in the first place, to the House what the Bill means; and, secondly, make it clear to the country. The hon. and gallant Member for Dudley has moved an Amendment raising the question of what is meant by the words "cease to be Established by law," and the right hon. Gentleman opposite meets that Amendment by asking, "How can the

    469
    Church of England be better off after this Amendment has been inserted?" The effect of this Amendment is not that it will make the Clause better or worse, but it will, at any rate, make its meaning clearer. It is agreed that an Act of Parliament should mean something instead of meaning nothing, and that is the effect of this Amendment. That is the effect of the contentious Clauses which have been piled upon the top of this proposal, and they have produced many questions for discussion. We say, at any rate, that you should know what you are doing, and that you should have an exact meaning attached to these words. The Home Secretary says that these particular words have often been used before, and he quoted instances to show that that was so, and he asserted that Parliament must have meant something by them. If that is so, then we ought to be able to ascertain what this Parliament means by these words. I am not a lawyer, but, as far as I can gather, after listening to the speeches of my hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the words "cease to be Established by law" may have some important moral significance, but have no legal significance whatever. Supposing you pass merely the provision:—
    "On the first day of July next the Church of England, so far as it extends to and exists in Wales and Monmouthshire, shall cease to be Established by law."
    No one would know how such an Act of Parliament would apply. This question has been considered by lawyers better able to judge than I am, and I put it forward that no one can find out the difference which this proposal makes, because there would be no difference. If that is so, I think it is rather important that we should recognise that fact. What do we mean when we say that we are against Disestablishment? Do we mean something that has much more of a moral than a legal significance? The Home Secretary said that Disestablishment in his view meant the recognition of some particular form of religion as true. He then went on to say that we could not be surprised if Nonconformists resented the State recognising as true a religion to which they did not belong. I think we can very reasonably express such a surprise, because we are exactly in that position in Scotland, and there you do not resent it at all. The State, so far as Scotland goes, recognises a Church to which we do not
    470
    belong as true if that be the nature of Establishment, and we feel no grievance whatever. We are very glad it should be so, and we should resist as strongly as any Scotch Churchman the Disestablishment of the Church in Scotland. We find also that there are a great many English Roman Catholics who, though not belonging to the Church of England, decidedly oppose any proposal for its Disestablishment. Therefore, it is quite untrue to say it necessarily and universally gives a sense of grievance that the State should recognise some religious body to which one does not himself belong. There is, of course, a very great difficulty in accepting the Home Secretary's view of Establishment. You cannot really say the State recognises as exclusively true any particular religion if it recognises more than one Church, which happens to be the case. It is evident the recognition must be of a broader character; it cannot have that exclusive character which the Home Secretary seemed to imply. It is possible for the State in different circumstances to recognise more religions than one. What then do we conceive to be the value of maintaining Establishment, and why do we wish to have it maintained? I think simply for the reason that the State should as a corporation accept religion in some form. It should conform to Christianity in some form. That is expressed wherever the State performs a great public act with religious sanction. Earlier in these Debates other speakers have pointed out the extreme difficulty of discussing Disestablishment when you are dealing, not with a whole State or a whole Church, but with part of the State and part of the Church. There is a certain absurdity in Welsh Disestablishment, because, whether Wales is a nation or not, it is indisputably not a State. There is only one State in the United Kingdom, and there is a certain difficulty in arguing that the State in Wales recognises something different from what it recognises in England. You will find some difficulty in ascertaining what is the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury after this Bill passes. Supposing the King went to Wales, and the Archbishop of Canterbury was in attendance upon him, would he be the first subject of the King, not of Royal blood, as he is in England, or would he not? I do not think anybody knows. I believe all over the Kingdom, and in Ireland, too, he would remain the first subject of the King. It is the State that

    471
    recognises him as such, and the State's recognition holds in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. If that is so, it diminishes very much the force of the effect of Disestablishment so far as it extends to Wales. I am not, of course, speaking of Disendowment. We are concerned to bring out that there is not the grievance attached to Establishment which is often supposed. Establishment is constantly treated as though it were to the Church a system of fetters and to Nonconformity an insult. It is not necessarily either one or the other. It is certainly not an insult to Nonconformity. The Church of England feels no insult from the fact that another religious body is the Established Church in Scotland, nor do English Roman Catholics feel any insult in the matter. On the other side, it is not necessarily a system of fetters, because it may correspond almost to any set of conditions. You may give freedom to a Church and yet make it the religious exponent of the corporate life of the State, or you may fetter it in the most extreme degree. The extent of the freedom of the Church does not in the least depend upon whether it is Established or Disestablished, and, as a matter of fact, the law that governs trustees is often found to fetter the spiritual freedom of religious bodies that are not Established.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the Noble Lord's remarks will invite some reply. We shall be getting a long way from the Definition Clause and be going into results.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I will bear that caution in mind and restrict my observations. The definition that is proposed runs in these terms:—
    "The expression 'cease to be Established by law' means ceases to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been conferred upon the Church by Statute, and which are not possessed or enjoyed in like manner or degree by any other religious body* in Wales and Monmouthshire."
    That would make it an act of assimilation between the Church of England and Nonconformist bodies. On the face of it, the words mean that the status, privileges, and rights of the Church would be assimilated to those of the Nonconformist bodies in so far as that status and those rights and privileges were the gift of the State, or re-
    472
    suited from the acts of the State. No one supposes whatever status the Church has in its religious character that it could be regulated by Act of Parliament. My hon. Friend proposes that the status, rights, and privileges of the Church, so far as they are the creation of the State, should be terminated by Disestablishment, and that should be the definition of Disestablishment. That, at any rate, is a very clear proposition. You have only to look at the Statute to see what is done. The right hon. Gentleman says a much better way would be to take Lord Halsbury's definition, which is implied in the Bill, as it stands. I do not think, with great respect to so distinguished a lawyer, his definition is a very good one. The crucial difficulty in Lord Halsbury's definition is that it leaves the connection with the State quite vague. It speaks of recognition strengthened in this particular case by connection with the State. That hardly carries us very far. You ask what is the strengthening by connection with the State, and you are precisely where you started. It is like the definition that a Chancery suit is a suit in Chancery; you do not illuminate the subject any more. You want to be able to say for the purposes of this Bill you know what Disestablishment means. This Bill does not regulate the general meaning of the word, but we ought to have some meaning quite definite and expressed after Clause 1 of this Bill. My hon. Friend has put down an Amendment, and I dare say it may be improved; but, if we are to legislate in a workmanlike fashion, we ought to define precisely what we mean, so that those who have to interpret the Bill will be under no doubt about it.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I venture to say no one who has taken part in the discussion will agree with the Noble Lord. I question whether any Bill has ever been discussed as thoroughly as this Bill. Every important aspect of Disestablishment and Disondowment, with one exception, has really been discussed in the course of the Committee stage. The Amendment itself shows the difficulty and the danger of attempting to define what is meant by Establishment. Just let me remind the Committee what the Amendment is. It says:—
    "The expression 'cease to be Established by law' means cease to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been conferred upon the Church by Statute and which are not

    473
    possessed or enjoyed in like manner and degree by any other religious body in Wales and Monmouthshire."
    The hon. and gallant Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) agreed that Establishment in Wales dates from a time anterior to the date of the political union. We all know there was no complete union between England and Wales before the time of Henry VIII., and everybody knows the Church of England was Established in Wales as early as the twelfth century. Therefore, in its origin, it is not Established by Statute at all, and, if we accepted the Amendment to confine Establishment to the Statute law, then the Church of England in Wales would remain Established in the same sense as it was Established in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. We should simply be stultifying ourselves. Of course, the words "Established by law" have been incorporated not in one, but in many Statutes. The Statute of twenty-third Elizabeth expressly states "religion now Established by Her Majesty." Therefore, whatever meaning may have been attached to those words at that time, that is the meaning which must be attached to the words "Established by law" in this Bill. It would, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, be absurd to define "Establishment" or "Disestablishment" in an Interpretation Clause. The Bill itself interprets what is meant by Disestablishment. If you want to know what we mean by Disestablishment, read the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imply that because the Church of England was Established in Wales before the political union of the two countries, it was therefore a voluntary association of the two Churches. That is really unsound. The Church of England was Established in Wales in the twelfth century against the wishes of the Welsh people, the Welsh clergy and the Welsh bishops. There is one instance of that. In 1172, when the Chapter of St. David's met and appointed Giraldus Cambrensis Bishop of St. David's, the King, Henry II., intervened and forced the Church to appoint Peter de Leia as the bishop. That was against the wishes of the Welsh Chapter of St. David's, it was against the wishes of the Welsh prelates, and it was against the wishes of the Welsh people. Therefore the appointment of the Welsh bishops by the English King is one of the badges of Establishment. It was one of the first things that happened in Wales after the Church of
    474
    England had been Established. I should not have ventured to say on my own authority that was done against the wishes of the Welsh people. I will cite an authority which, so far as I know, has never been cited before, and which I think even the Noble Lord will accept. In Stubbs's "Constitutional History," Volume I., page 544, I find these words:—
    "The fact that the Welsh bishops received their consecration at Canterbury and were, from the reign of Henry I. elected and admitted under the authority of the Kings of England, is sufficient to prove that anything like real sovereignty was lost to the so-called Kings of Wales."
    Lord HUGH CECIL: That has rather a civil than an ecclesiastical significance.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: It was done, as I say, against the wishes of the Welsh clergy, and therefore it has an ecclesiastical significance. We all know the great fight Giraldus fought was on ecclesiastical ground. He wanted to maintain the independence of the Welsh Church from the domination of Canterbury. That was not done by Statute at all. There is no Statute which gave the King power to appoint the Welsh bishops; that is really the root of the whole matter. The worst part of the Establishment always has been the power of the King to appoint the heads of the Welsh Church. If this Amendment is accepted it would leave that position untouched. I do not know if the definition suggested by my hon. Friend would or would not benefit the Church. I should have thought the Church would have been very glad to be rid of that great hindrance to her progress, proved by seven centuries of comparative failure, namely, the power of the King, acting on the advice of English politicians, to appoint the heads of the Welsh Church. One of the necessary results of this Bill will be to restore to the Welsh Church herself that power which existed before the invasion of Wales of putting at the head of her Church the men who she herself trusts.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I venture to think that one thing that has emerged from this Debate, beyond all question, is that we do require some definition of this Clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman has taken us to Lord Halsbury and to other legal authorities, and I think it is not perhaps altogether surprising that the authorities do not entirely agree. Personally, I look forward with the keenest satisfaction to the trouble that is sure to arise on the interpretation of these words, "shall cease to be Established by law." I

    475
    see in them a very pretty case. I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Welsh party, perhaps, arguing the case on behalf of the Established Church. I can see the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs struggling with his inclination and his conscience as to whether or not he should accept a brief on behalf of the Government, and being ultimately induced to do so with reluctance. The right hon. Gentleman advocating Establishment would probably call as his witness the Home Secretary, not to give his own opinion, but that of Geraldus Cambrensis. Of course, he would examine the Home Secretary with mutual satisfaction. I should think the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs would call as his witness the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whose close attention to the details of the Bill, and whose accurate information upon all it contains has been one of the joys and marvels of this Debate. I could conceive the case would give satisfaction to everybody concerned except possibly those whose interests were involved, and who would have the privilege of paying the costs. Speaking as a lawyer, therefore, I say it is eminently desirable that no Clause defining these words should be introduced.
    But speaking as a Member of the House desirous to do all he can to minimise the inconvenience and injustice of this Bill, surely it is obvious, from the speeches we have heard from hon. Members on both sides, that we ought to make up our minds before this Bill leaves the House of Commons what we mean by this phrase. The Home Secretary criticised this Amendment because he said the definition suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend did not define the words "cease to be Established." I think the right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that those words only occurred in the first Section. But that first Section works all the harm it can, and, therefore, his criticism that the Definition Clause only deals with the words "cease to be Established by law" has really no cogency, because they are words which require definition. The definition suggested is that the words "cease to be Established" shall mean "cease to possess or enjoy any privileges conferred on the Church by Statute." Apparently the Home Secretary thought they were conferred by Statute, for he read to an enraptured House of Commons a quotation to prove that. But my
    476
    hon. and learned Friend who last spoke evidently thinks that the Church has not been Established at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom we are delighted to see on one of his meteoric appearances in this House during the progress of this Debate, is always clear and precise in his statements, and in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill he quoted, in regard to what happened at the Reformation, some words by Professor Maitland, to the effect that the Church was then Established as a State Church for the first time. Therefore, under the aegis of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have Professor Maitland putting forward the proposition that the Church was Established by Statute at the time of the Reformation.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I simply quoted Professor Maitland.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman said that at the Reformation the Church was Established as a State Church for the first time.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is what Professor Maitland said.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman quoted the statement in support of his own argument? I take it he quoted it because he thought it would bear out what he was saying, and, consequently, we may take it he agrees that the Church was Established by Statute at the time of the Reformation. If that is so, then this Definition Clause is correct, because it says that "cease to be Established by law" shall mean "cease to have the privileges conferred on the Church by Statute." Therefore I can see no objection to it at all. But should there be any difficulty as to that I would suggest that we add the words "or common law" after the words "conferred on the Church by Statute." I do not know whether that will recommend itself to the hon. and gallant Member, but I do think it would meet the objections raised by the legal luminaries on both sides of the House. The only part of the definition which remains is that part that says that they shall "cease to enjoy privileges conferred by Statute which are not possessed in like manner by other religious bodies in Wales." The whole argument of hon. Members opposite is that other religious bodies in Wales are not Established by Statute at all. If that is so it would do

    477
    no harm. It can do no harm to compare the Establishment by law of the Church with the position of Nonconformist bodies which are not Established. But if, on the other hand, the contention held by some is correct that, indirectly, if not directly, the effect of the Statute law has been to establish these Nonconformist bodies and to give statutory sanction to their privileges, surely we can accept the argument still more strongly urged on the other side that you do not require in this Bill to put Nonconformists in Wales in a better position than the Established Church. If, in fact, other religious bodies are not Established, this is perfectly harmless. If they are, then it meets the justice of the case and carries out the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I beg to support this Amendment, and I suggest to the Home Secretary he would meet all objections by adding the words "or common law," and I urge the House to accept a proposal which will prevent much litigation that otherwise may be anticipated.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: The hon. Member appears to infer that the Church of England will be placed in an inferior position after Disestablishment unless this definition is accepted. This same point arose in regard to the United Methodist Churches, which had to come to Parliament in 1907 in order to re-establish their position. They had to get a special Act—the United Methodist Church Act, 1907—and a local private Act as well for the purpose of vesting their property in trust. There is no reference whatever in that Act to the practices or even the doctrines of that Church, but there is a provision in this Bill whereby the Disestablished Church in Wales can place itself in the same position as the Free Churches. Clause 13, Sub-section (2), gives the new Church power to be incorporated in order that it may hold property exactly as the United Methodist Church, which was the Free Church to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. Therefore the Church in Wales, even without the Amendment, will, under the provisions of the Bill, be in exactly the same position as the other Free Churches.
    Mr. HOARE: The hon. Member who has just sat down will excuse me if I do not go into the point to which he has referred. Let me say, in passing, that there are many Acts of Parliament in which the doctrines and discipline of various Nonconformist bodies are ex-
    478
    plicitly set out. I have risen chiefly to-deal with an observation which was first made by the Home Secretary and afterwards repeated by the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams). When my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) challenged the Home Secretary as to what was meant by "Disestablished" or "Established," the Home Secretary referred my hon. Friend to a number of Acts which stand upon the Statute Book in which the phrase "Established by law" is used. He began by referring my hon. Friend to an Act passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and went on to refer him to other Acts passed in the reigns of William and Mary, and Queen Anne; and he used the words:—
    "Whatever meaning 'Establishment' had in those Acts of Parliament it has in this Bill."
    The hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs repeated that proposition and said:—
    "Whatever meaning was attached to those words at that time must be attached to them in this Bill."
    It is to controvert that proposition that I have risen, for I believe that the Committee will find, if they consider this question with any care, that the term "Establishment" has entirely changed its meaning during the last 300 years. If you take the time at which the Home Secretary started, the period of the Reformation settlement, then "Establishment" meant an exclusive ecclesiastical system, directed chiefly in opposition to Rome and Papalism, and it was typified in a number of rigid and Protestant Statutes. I need not mention more than such Acts as the Act of Uniformity, the Act of Supremacy, or the Act for the Submission of the Clergy. I believe hon. Members can add other instances to those I have given. If you go a step further, and come to the Stuart and Hanoverian periods, you will find that "Establishment" meant something quite different. It meant then a system, exclusive again, directed chiefly at maintaining the Church of England in the face of the inroads of dissent. It was broken up, in my opinion rightly, by such Acts as the Toleration Act at the end of the seventeenth century, and, within our own time, at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the Catholic Emancipation Act. There again "Establishment" meant something quite different from what it meant at the time of the Reformation Settlement. If you take the period after Catholic Emancipation, you will find it meant something quite different again. It

    479
    meant then, not a system under which the Sovereign was personally supreme over the Church, but a system under which Parliament had come to occupy the position which had previously been occupied by a personal Sovereign, and which was typified in such Parliamentary Acts as the Clergy Discipline Act and the Public Worship Regulation Act, and a number of exclusive and restrictive Acts of Parliament which this House, together with the House of Lords, passed in order to show its control over a particular system of ecclesiastical government. There again "Establishment" meant something quite different from what it meant either in the seventeenth or the sixteenth century.
    In view of these historical facts, which I do not think anyone can controvert, we are justified in claiming that with these changes in the meaning of the term "Establishment" we should have a definition in this Bill. I believe that if a definition were inserted it might very well express a change that has come over the minds of Churchmen with reference to the question of Establishment altogether. Many of us no longer regard it from the exclusive point of view of the early nineteenth century or the seventeenth century or the sixteenth century, and we say that this exclusive system should be modified. Many of us see no objection, by extending the definition, to bringing other religious denominations within the field of what we now know as the Establishment. There are many instances I could quote where several denominations are brought into the term "Establishment." There are cases on the Continent where two and sometimes three denominations are all Established by the State. If the State thinks that it can no longer use one denomination as its instrument, let it not destroy its instrument altogether, but let it take in other denominations, and continue what many of us regard as much the most important part of the whole question that we have been discussing during the last weeks, the State's formal connection with Christianity in some shape or form. An hon. Member previously in the Debate quoted the case of Scotland. That has a bearing on what I have attempted to say, for there we have a case of concurrent Establishment. If you take the United Kingdom as a whole, the Church of England is Established here, and the Church of Scotland is Established in Scotland. If Disestablishment must come
    480
    in Wales, and I sincerely hope it will not, let it not come in the form of destroying all connection of every kind between the Church and the State, but let it come in the form of concurrent Establishment, bringing in the various other Nonconformist denominations which are doing such excellent work in Wales at the present time. It is with that object that I support my hon. Friend's Amendment to have some definition of the term "Establishment" so wide as to bring in other denominations and not destroy altogether the connection between Christianity and the State.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): We are here concerned with a particular definition, and, if I may say so, the discussion has gone rather wide of that particular point during the last two hours, although it has been an interesting one. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), in recommending the Amendment to the Committee, pointed out that the word Establishment was used in different senses, that it might mean "existence," and it might mean "legalised and authorised by the State." In those senses Nonconformity is as equally Established as the Church. Therefore, unless Establishment means something more than that, the phrase in the Bill has no very precise significance. It seems to me that there are two points on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman should satisfy the Committee. First, he must satisfy the Committee that a definition is necessary, and, secondly, he must satisfy the Committee that his definition is a right one. With regard to the necessity for a definition, I think the answer has already been given that what we mean by the term "cease to be Established by law" is really the substance of the Bill so far as it has been passed by this Committee. With regard to this particular Amendment, I would submit to him that on reflection and consideration he really cannot support it. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Professor Maitland are in agreement or not. In my own view I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. As I understand it the Establishment is not an Act of Establishment, but it is a status; it is merely the relationship between the Church and the State from generation to generation.

    481
    Before the Reformation there was the Church, which had a certain status and a certain power. That was the then Established Church. That status was consolidated by the Reformation, and has been altered very much since, so much so that there are many people who think, and I believe there is something to be said for it, that every Statute passed for the relief of Nonconformity was in a certain sense an alteration in the status of the Church. It did not alter the status of the Church, but in relation to Nonconformity it certainly did in some respects alter the status of the Church considered as a religious body, because it shared its privileges with other denominations. If that be an improper view of the question, the hon. Member will see at once that the word "Statute" is an undue limitation. I should like in this connection to quote from the book on "Conservatism," by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). On page 101, he says:—
    "The Establishment of the Church of England does not rest on any formal Statute …"
    I quite agree with that.
    "Wherever a. nation formally and by law accepts a Church as the true exponent of religion, Establishment exists. In our country, in the long history of 1,400 years, the relation between Church and State has been gradually developed and adjusted, sometimes by the informal operation of custom and opinion, sometimes by the direct Act of the State in legislation, until it has come to bear the character we see to-day."
    6.0 P.M.
    That is to say, partly by custom, partly by common law and Statute. If that is the case, the words in the definition would not answer the purpose the hon. Member has in mind. Under these circumstances it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman in his definition seems once for all to admit that the Church has an Establishment in a very peculiar sense, because he says that "ceases to be Established by law" means "ceases to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been conferred upon the Church by Statute." Therefore, I take it he admits that the Church has certain rights and privileges conferred upon it by Statute, and under those circumstances we say that gives it a status which answers the description of Establishment. There is one point the Noble Lord has made more than once in the Committee stage, and I agree with him from the Church point of view. When I have mentioned privileges the Noble Lord has always said, "You talk about the privileges, but there are disabilities," and I quite appreciate the point he
    482
    has made. I am not sure that this Amendment meets that. I think "possess or enjoy the status, rights, or privileges" rather excludes disabilities as such.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am quite willing to amend it in that sense.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It seems to me that what we call the temporal advantages of the Church really are not comparable to the spiritual disabilities of the Church, if I may look at it from what we call a Free Church point of view. We think there can be no doubt about the Bill as it stands, and it is not necessary to define these words, and if you want to know what "ceases to be Established by law" means, you must read the rest of the Bill.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting speech, and I have no quarrel with its tone or its substance. I agree very much with him that this definition is not complete as it stands, and to make it complete there ought to be a reference to the obligations of the Church as well as to its rights and privileges. That, of course, if there was any chance of its being accepted by the Government, could be very easily arranged between us. With regard to his contention that no such definition is required, I do not think he has met our arguments, particularly that of the hon. Member (Mr. Hoare). I think anyone who looks at the history of the matter will see that the word "Establishment" has been used in very different senses, not only in common parlance, but in Statutes. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), said, with great truth, that "Established by law" has been used in a number of Statutes beginning with Elizabeth. I think he said, "Established by the Sovereign" there. I am not quite sure whether that is the same thing, but certainly "Established by law" came to be used very early in the seventeenth century. It was certainly used in a Stuart Statute, and of course it was used in the Statutes of William and Mary and Anne. I do not think there is any real dispute between us that what was intended by these Statutes was to indicate the form of Christianity which the State recognised as being legitimately exercised in accordance with the law in this country. It was to distinguish those forms of Christianity like the forms of Nonconformity, and more particularly at that date Roman Catholicism, which were not recognised

    483
    and which were therefore illegal and were made very much illegal by a succession of Statutes at that time. That was the real distinction which was intended to be drawn by the Legislature at that time, and "Established" in those days meant no more, or very little more, than recognised. Undoubtedly its meaning has come to be changed a great deal, and Establishment is now taken to mean that bundle of rights and duties which defines the relations between the State and the Church. I quite agree that it is not satisfactory to single out the presence of the bishops in the House of Lords or the existence of Church Courts as essential parts of Establishment. They are merely incidents of the Establishment, which might be taken away leaving the Establishment, for all purposes that we value, exactly as strong, perhaps even stronger, than it is now. The example has been quoted very often of the relation between Church and State in Scotland, where none of these incidents exist in anything like the same form, and many of them do not exist at all.
    I cannot help feeling that too much has been said about the earlier part of this Amendment and not quite enough, at any rate from my point of view, about the later part of it. I attach much more value to the words at the end of the Amendment, "and which are not possessed or enjoyed in like manner and degree by any other religious body in Wales and Monmouthshire." These are words to which I cling with something like the energy of despair. I have always hated the Disestablishment part of this Bill, because of its purely negative character. That is what I always thought is the real vice of it. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), made a speech earlier in the evening in which he discussed the position of the Church in Wales at the time of the twelfth century, and he said the Church was Established in Wales in the twelfth century at the time Wales was conquered by England. I entirely disagree. I have read the passage in Stubbs which he quoted, and it seems to me it does not in the least bear out what he said. What Stubbs says is that Wales was progressively conquered. William Rufus, and so on, exercised a nominal suzerainty over it. That was not a real thing. It grew more real under Henry II., still more real to some extent under Richard, and so on, until by the time, of Henry III., and finally
    484
    Edward I., it was a real conquest, and as a mark of the conquest he says that the English King began to effectively exercise his right to appoint the Welsh bishops. It is quite true, therefore, that the English State may be said to have been brought into relation with the Welsh Church at that time. I think that is quite arguable, but to say there was no Established Church is entirely to misapprehend the matter. The Church was Established in Wales. That there was a close connection between the Welsh State and the Welsh Church from the very outset, I have no doubt whatever. Indeed at that time of day it would have been absolutely unthinkable, and no one could have conceived a Church not in connection with the State. State and Church were regarded as different aspects of the same thing. There was, of course, the Roman Church which exercised a varying degree of supremacy, or suzerainty, or superiority over the other Churches, but apart from that, State and Church were always intimately allied, and at every State function in the nature of a Parliament or a Great Council the Church was always represented as a matter of course. Certainly no one would have thought of doing any State act without the blessing of the Church being assured. Therefore I do not agree at all with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he suggests that Stubbs ever had any doubt about it. My attention has been directed to a passage in one of Stubbs' visitation charges, which seems to show that he took a view—which no doubt is right—much more definite and extreme than the one I have been trying to put tentatively before the Committee. He says:—
    "The Bishoprics of Bangor and St. Asaph revived under Norman rule; the eventful struggles of Giraldus Cambrensis took place in the Court of England and under English auspices at Rome; Welsh Bishops attended Court and Council; were consecrated and made their profession at Canterbury, bringing with them into the one system of Established hurchman-ship possession of lands, tithes, canons, customs and traditions which they had from an antiquity to which our oldest foundations cannot pretend. From the very beginning of Parliament, the Welsh Bishops were Barons as well as Bishops in the House of Lords, and the Welsh Chapters and clergy sent Proctors to the Convocation of Canterbury two centuries and a-half before the Welsh counties sent representatives to the English House of Commons. And all this was done not by forcible attempts of English Kings and Prelates to force on the Welsh an English or Anglo-Roman system: although the Metropolitan visit of Archbishop Baldwin in the twelfth century and the great visitation of Archbishop Peckham in the thirteenth, had the effect of consolidating the hold of England in both Church and State on the Princes and people of Wales."
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Does the writer cite any authority for these propositions?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think Bishop Stubbs would have been required to cite authority for a statement of that kind.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I admit Stubbs is a very great authority about English constitutional history, but I never accept any proposition of his about Wales unless I see what authority he has.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: In the book there is no authority cited. I am citing him as my authority. I quite recognise that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to disagree with him, as we are entitled to disagree with any authority. I did not wish to be led aside into a historical controversy which, after all, is a little remote from any actual purpose I have in view. I only mentioned it because I wanted to insist on the fact that there has always been a connection between Church and State in Wales from the earliest time, and I am myself convinced that that is of vast importance to the State. People say, "What harm is going to be done in saying, the Church in Wales shall cease to be Established?" I agree. It is not easy, but you can indicate the enormous value that it has been to our whole policy to have a connection between religion and the State. Is meets you at every turn. Many of the signs are so common to our knowledge that we do not recognise that they had an origin in the connection between Church and State. The Union Jack, of course, is merely a symbol of the connection. The triple cross shows that from the very outset of our history we have always had that connection, and though "God Save the King" itself is probably a relatively modern National Anthem, yet it merely crystallised the general idea which existed of the importance of the connection between religion and the State.
    The CHAIRMAN: We seem to be discussing the Bill as a whole. I must remind the Committee once more that we are now discussing Clause 35, the Definition Clause. We have passed the words in the first Clause, "shall cease to be Established by law." The only question that arises here is one of definition.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The question is what you mean by it. I think I had begun my argument before you, Sir, reoccupied
    486
    the Chair, and probably therefore it seems very irrelevant to you. The point is this. The nature of the definition keeps open the door to concurrent Establishment. I want a definition which will leave it open to some future and more constructive Parliament to erect a system which shall recognise, if necessary, all forms of Christianity as the Established religion of Wales. It is because there are these words that I am going to support this definition. I have been very reluctant to mention what is going on in Scotland at present, and I do not wish to do more than refer to it in a single sentence, for I think no rash hand should interfere with that movement, which, at any rate, may have immense results for the Christian community. The whole question in Scotland is whether it is possible to discover some formula which, while recognising religion and giving to religion State recognition, will be free from all the objections of subordination and superiority—subordination of religion to the State, and superiority of one denomination over another, which Nonconformists, I know, very genuinely and very plausibly object to in the present form of the Establishment. That is what I am anxious to do. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom we are all glad to welcome to our Debates every now and then, has always defended this Bill very largely because of the national feeling of Wales. I want to impress upon him and the Committee that if you are going to have real nationality, if you are going to have something more than mere civil union, and a kind of enlarged municipality, you will have to provide for its soul as well as its body. I do not want to go into that at too great length. I recognise the great difficulty of providing for that by the Established Church of England alone, and I quite agree there is great difficulty in the matter. I should have welcomed—I do not say that I would have accepted it until I saw it—a proposal by the Government for joint Establishment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: How?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am afraid I should be out of order if I were to go into that now. Bnt I have suggested on the platform expedients which might tend towards that, and I would be very glad to discuss the matter on a proper occasion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What I am asking now is that the Government should keep the door open. It is possible that you might find some such

    487
    formula. The Scottish Churches are discussing whether such a formula might be found. Do not shut the door by this Bill to the possibility of defining Establishment in such a way as would keep open the possibility of finding such a formula. I do not quote Mr. Bradley as an authority who will be very much respected by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He is a man of great earnestness, and he has taken a very great part against this Bill. He says:—
    "The ideal of Nonconformists is religious equality; that of the Church of England is the preserved and perpetuated identity of the State with the nation's religion. The Inquiry now is, Are these idea* mutually destructive, or can both he accepted as constructive principles for the erection of the new edifice to meet our modern religious conditions—an edifice in which the nation's Churches and the State shall find a place, each contributing what the function and power of each can to the security, enlargement, and national usefulness of the building?"
    That is the exact proposition I desire to submit to the Committee as the reason why they should define "Established by law" in such a way as not to shut the door against the definite erection of an edifice of a large character which will recognise all forms of Christianity as the religion recognised and believed in by the State as the State.
    Colonel GREIG: I should not have intervened in the Debate but for some of the observations that have fallen from the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare). Before dealing with their observations, may I say, with reference to the advisability of not putting in any definition of the words "Established by law," that I think the course of the Debate has made it perfectly evident that the definition suggested in the Amendment has been riddled? The proposers themselves have admitted that the words "conferred upon the Church by Statute" do not cover the case, but to add at the end a reference to "any status, rights, or privileges not enjoyed by any other religious body in Wales" would be to give a definition which, when it came to be construed in the Law Courts, would lead to interminable discussion and litigation. I think both of the hon. Members who have spoken when they dragged in the suggestion of concurrent Endowment, tried to give point to their observations by referring to Scotland.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I said concurrent establishment.
    Colonel GREIG: They really quite misapprehend the position in Scotland. In Scotland there is an Established Church which happens to be Presbyterian in religion, and there never has been any suggestion up to the present time for concurrent establishment. It is well-known that two large bodies, the Established Church and the United Free Church, are having conferences, but there never has been any suggestion that there should be any other religion established—Catholicism, Episcopalianism, or anything of that sort—and to suggest that there is a movement for concurrent establishment is to misapprehend the position entirely. The misapprehension is peculiar. The hon. Member for Chelsea spoke of the fact that there docs exist an Established Church in Scotland holding religious views different from those held by the Established Church in England as an example of concurrent Establishment. When you cross the border into Scotland, you find that the Established Church is a Presbyterian Church, and everyone who does not belong to that Church becomes a Nonconformist. In the eye of the law those who do not belong to the Established Church are Nonconformists. There is no concurrent establishment alongside of the English Church, because the English Church is not recognised there, and to talk of concurrent Establishment in Scotland is to misapprehend the whole position. Why do we need to define the words "Established by law"?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: That was not at all what I was suggesting. It was not the fact that there was one form of Christianity established by law on one side of the Tweed and another form on the other side, but the fact that negotiations and discussions are proceeding as to whether the Established Church and the Free Church can come to some agreement as to some State recognition for both.
    Colonel GREIG: That is a question for them.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Hear, hear.
    Colonel GREIG: I am not going into that question, because at the present moment it is a very delicate one. I wish to make it clear that many of us here hold firmly the position and it is just as well that it should be recognised—that it is not right for the State to choose any particular religion as the State religion. That is a fundamental proposition which some of us hold on this side of the House. Mr. Gladstone suggested it himself in his

    489
    great book on Disestablishment. He said:—
    "What claim have I personally to have any religion supported whilst another is disavowed by the State? The only ground on which a Church establishment can equitably be maintained is that it contains and exhibits truth in its purest and most effective form."
    If there is any necessity for defining the words "Established by law," I ask why the question was not raised when we were discussing the Coronation Oath a few years ago? In that Oath there are the words Established by law, but no one ever suggested that they should be defined. I go farther, and say that to put a definition into this Bill would lead to great inconvenience, and I think the Committee ought to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. KING: After the discussion we have had, I hope the Committee will adopt the only possible course, namely, the withdrawal of the Amendment altogether. Really, there is very strong ground for withdrawing the Amendment, because it has been treated not in a practical, but in what one may call an academic spirit. There has not been really a practical suggestion made in the Debate all through. A great many learned authorities have been quoted. I have heard quotations from Maitland, Stubbs, Giraldus Cambrensis, Hooker, Warburton, and others, and we have also had quotations from a work by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). It is remarkable that the book which the Noble Lord himself described as a very trumpery one, should have been quoted; but if he already does not regard his opinion as at all authoritative, I wonder what the other authorities would say of their very antiquated opinions. I think it is entirely out of place to bring learned discussion and ancient authorities into this matter. After all, we are not discussing an academic question, but a practical question. That leads me to the point that this Amendment does not at all satisfy those who have drafted it, although they will go into the Lobby in favour of it. It has been pointed out once or twice on this side of the House that the definition given in the Amendment in no way meets the whole case. In fact, all the hon. Members who spoke on the other side admitted that themselves. I therefore very earnestly hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I quite understand the regret expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. King) that we on this side have been citing authorities in the
    490
    Debate. That regret is not confined to himself, but is shared by hon. Gentlemen on the other side. They seem to have ignored a great many of the authorities on which the Debate has turned. They have ignored them because they are quite ignorant of them. The object of the definition in the Amendment is to try to secure some greater clarity of view with regard to points raised over and over again in the course of the discussions on the Bill. The Government have refused to give us any information or any further expression of view whatever. The Amendment is put down with the object, I believe, at the eleventh hour of getting a further expression from the Government with regard to these difficulties. I do not wish to cover the whole question of what is "Establishment" except in the briefest way, but there seems to be so much confusion about it that I must outline what, in my view, is involved in the question of Establishment and how it affects the matter. We must consider the question of Establishment from the point of view of the Church and also of the State, the two great parties who, by the course of historic connection, have intertwined their relations one with another by mutual consent. It is proposed to tear those two great historical bodies apart so far as Wales is concerned. Therefore anything you are doing to one in this connection will have his correlative effect with regard to the other. At the same time it is convenient to consider them apart. As far as the Church is concerned, Establishment may be considered under three heads. There is, first, its legal aspect. The legal aspect has been stated here to be the effect with regard to the legislative portion of the Church Convocation judiciary—that is the Courts—and the executive portion, namely, the appointment of bishops and deans. All those functions of the Church are affected by the State as the result of Establishment, and with regard to those functions of the Church this Bill, so far as we have gone, does deal—that is to say, it purports to deal—with Convocation and the executive functions of the Crown.
    Then comes the moral aspect of the question, the recognition of religion by the State. That is an aspect to which we on this side attach very great importance. That is a thing which in terms is not dealt with by the Bill, though it is quite conceivable that the recognition of religion by the local authorities, and even by the

    491
    State in certain connections could go on at the expense of other religious bodies. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. Then there is the social aspect of the matter, that the Church of England under the present arrangement takes a certain lead in social functions, and so on, which it is suggested deprives Nonconformists of equality. I think, personally, that there is very little in that. In any case, whatever it is, it is not touched by the Bill. Then there is the other side of the question—the aspect of Establishment from the State's point of view. So far as the State as a body is concerned, all that has happened to the Church has its correlative effect on the State. That is to say clearly, if the Church ceases to have her officers appointed by the State, the State ceases to appoint the officers. But when you come to the members of the State we get to the difficulty which has been put to the Government several times, with regard to which the Government refuse to give any answer. The difficulty is this: As the result of the connection between Church and State, the Church, if you like, is saddled with certain duties to individual members of the State at large, and what we want to know is: Do those duties to individuals cease altogether, or do they not? Those individual duties are nearly always the result of law. If this Amendment were carried we should know where we were with regard to that question of the rights of third parties to the ministrations of the Church.
    The chief heads which occur to one at once are baptism, burial, marriage, and the right of public worship. Baptism personally may not be defined by Statute, but certainly, as far as burial, marriage, and the right of public worship are concerned, those are all recognised in more or less degree by Statutes of the realm. For instance, the Burial Acts deal expressly with the right of parishioners, irrespective of religious qualifications, to be buried in the churchyard of their parish church. With regard to worship, there again there is Statute as to the rights of parishioners to worship in their parish church, and when we come to the question of marriage, which was discussed at length a night or two ago, I am not at all clear how the matter stands. In the Debate the Noble Lord the Member for Newton-le-Willows (Viscount Wolmer) challenged the Home Secretary as to whether in the proposal which he had just
    492
    outlined he proposed to place the Church of England with regard to marriage identically in the same position as the Nonconformist body in Wales. If they are placed in that position, then the right of parishioners, as such, to any claim to be married within the Church ceases altogether. The Home Secretary stated, in the course of the Debate, that those rights must subsist at any rate to a limited degree, because the Church was handed over, as he put it, to the Church of England. What we want to know is what is going to happen? Is the fact that third persons are to retain the right which at present are enjoyed by Statute after the Church of England is Disestablished? Because see how the matter stands under the Bill.
    Section 1 Disestablishes the Church in terms—whatever that means. With the Disestablishment goes the law of the Church as law of the land. Section 3 sets up again the law as a matter of contract, but between the members only, and not with third persons. Then you have Section 3 saying in the latter part that the Church in its operations as a future legislative body may repeal Statute law. That permission is a very wide one. Clearly it cannot mean it can repeal this Act if it becomes an Act. Then anything that is in this Act will in future permanently bind the Church, and the representative body will not be able to deal with this Act. There are Clauses in this Bill which do lay upon the new Church the heavy hand of Statute law. What we want to be clear about is, if this Bill goes through, is it to be established once for all that the Church's connection with the State is dissolved so as to put the Church on the same footing as any other religious body in Wales? Or is it to be a "heads I win, tails I lose," kind of affair? Is it to be Disestablishment so far as reducing the Church to the same level of equality is concerned, but retaining the tie upon the Church when hon. Gentlemen opposite consider it is convenient so to do? With the object of clearing up that difficulty this Amendment is moved, and I personally will vote for it, though I quite agree that some slight modification of the actual form of words might be advisable. I do not think they substantially affect the Clause itself, though I should be glad if those words could be inserted, but, subject to that, the Amendment shall have my support.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to propose, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "cease" to insert the words "to be subject to obligations or," and after the word "been" to insert the words "imposed on or." The Amendment would then read as follows:—
    "The expression 'cease to be Established by law' means cease to be subject to any obligations or to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been imposed on or conferred upon the Church by Statute and which are not possessed or enjoyed in
    like manner and degree by any other religious body in Wales and Monmouthshire."
    This Amendment is proposed with the full consent of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen).
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Question put, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 291.

    Division No. 541.]

    AYES.

    [6.42 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Nield, Herbert

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Goldman, C. S.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Grant, J. A.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Bird, Alfred

    Hills, J. W.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Blair, Reginald

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Butcher, John George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stewart, Gershom

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Swift, Rigby

    Campion, W. R.

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cassel, Felix

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cator, John

    Kerry, Earl of

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han.S.)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Doughty, Sir George

    Malcolm, Ian

    Winterton, Earl

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fell, Arthur

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Moore, William

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Younger, Sir George

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen and Sir A. Cripps.

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Barton, William

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-Shire)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Boland, John Plus

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Dowd, John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Grady, James

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Brace, William

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Malley, William

    Brady, P. J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hinds, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Shee, James John

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hodge, John

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hudson, Walter

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pirie, Duncan Vernon

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Clough, Wiliam

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Primrose, Hon. Neill James

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Joyce, Michael

    Radford, G. H.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Reddy, Michael

    Crooks, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Cullinan, J.

    King, Joseph

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richards, Thomas

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    De Forest, Baron

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Delany, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lundon, Thomas

    Robinson, Sidney

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roche, Waiter F.

    Dillon, John

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Doneian, Captain A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Doris, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Duffy, William J.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Rowlands, James

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H, L. (Cleveland)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    M'Kean, John

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines.,Spalding)

    Sheehy, David

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Ffrench, Peter

    Manfield, Harry

    Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

    Field, Willam

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Smyth, Thomas F, (Leitrim, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Snowden, P.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Gilhooly, James

    Meagher, Michael

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Gill, A. H.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Ginnell, L.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Sutton, John E.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Molloy, Michael

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Tennant, Harold John

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Mooney, John J.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Morrell, Philip

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morison, Hector

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Munro, Robert

    Wadsworth, John

    Hackett, John

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    496

    497

    Wardie, George J.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Winfrey, Richard

    Waring, Walter

    Whyte, A. F.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Wiles, Thomas

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Wedgwood, Joslah C.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Government Amendment made: In Subsection (1), after the word "orders" ["who is in Holy Orders"], insert the words "the expression 'parochial benefits' has the same meaning as 'benefits' in the Incumbents Resignation Act, 1871."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words last inserted, to insert the words, "The expression 'all incidental expenses sanctioned by the Treasury of carrying this Act into effect' shall include all expenses incurred by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty with the sanction of the Treasury in carrying this Act into effect."
    The expression referred to in the Amendment will be found in Clause 10, Subsection (6). These bodies have a good many duties to perform, such as making certain inquiries, and making orders; and if hon. Members look at Clause 5, they will see that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty will have delicate inquiries to make with regard to property which comes under the Clause, and which vests in the Commissioners under this Bill. Besides that Clause, you will find in Clause 7, Sub-section (3), that they have other inquiries and adjustments to make, because they have to declare what constitutes private benefactions under the Act. There are also other Clauses and Schedules under which duties are cast on the Commissioners and on the Governors. It is quite proper that those bodies should perform those duties; there is not the least objection to the duties being cast upon them; but, just as the expenses in regard to the Welsh Church Commissioners are paid out of certain funds transferred from the Church, so it is only fair that any expenses incurred by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty in performing those duties should be paid out of the same fund.
    By Clause 10, Sub-section (6), it is provided that "all incidental expenses sanctioned by the Treasury," to carry the Act into effect, "shall be paid by the Commissioners out of money in their hands in pursuance of this Act, but not so, as in
    498
    any way to diminish the property to be-transferred to the representative body or county councils under this Act." They take those expenses out of the same funds as are used in respect of the Commissioners' services. The duties may involve certain very difficult inquiries and legal questions; but whatever they are, I think they ought to be paid for out of the expenses fund, if I may so call it. I have only heard one objection to this proposal, and that is that, for the purposes of the recent Commission, a number of inquiries were made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and the results were furnished to the members of the Commission. Of course, with regard to work already done, there is no suggestion of any kind that the expenses should come from those funds. So far as the work is done and finished, it will not come under these words. But I understand the information obtained for the purposes of the Commission—no doubt carefully obtained, and no doubt useful to the Commission—is not sufficient to enable the Commissioners to perform their duties under the Clauses to which I have referred. They must now make extremely careful inquiries; they must be prepared with evidence of all the facts which they have to ascertain, which must involve some further trouble and expense; and I cannot help thinking that the Government will feel that a clear case is made for paying those expenses, not, of course, out of funds to be furnished by Parliament or by the Treasury, but out of the actual moneys which are to be transferred from the Church. I do not think the matter requires longer discussion. I cannot distinguish myself these expenses from those which are already referred to in Clause 10, Sub-section (6), and I hope the Home Secretary will be willing to accept the Amendment.
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY (Mr. Hobhouse): The suggestion which is now put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is practically the same as that which was put forward on the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Newbury Division (Mr. Mount) in the course of

    499
    yesterday's discussion, and really I have very little to add to what I said in reply to the appeal he then made. Really there is very little left for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty to do, and I think it will be well to describe to the Committee what their actual duties and obligations are under this Bill. Under the 4th Clause, they have to ascertain Welsh ecclesiastical property. That is not very difficult, nor would it require a very long time. Practically they have got the whole of this information from the Welsh Commission, and I am informed by a member of that Commission that the only thing which they refused as to the way in which property was now held, and as to the way in which property will be in future held, had reference to the estates of the four bishops, which I think come under the head of particular properties transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Under that head there is extremely little for the Commissioners to do which has not already been done. Under Clause 5, certain property vests automatically in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it will at once pass from them, as the mere conduit pipe, to the Welsh Commissioners on the passage of the Bill, and on the date of Disestablishment. That, therefore, gives practically no trouble at all. Then they have to make certain orders declaring what those properties are. That is very trifling. They have to make Orders with respect to property transferred to the Welsh Commissioners under Clause 7. That again is a small matter. They have to make orders with reference to border parishes, of which there are some twenty or thirty, and that, too, is very trifling.
    Mr. CAVE: There is also Clause 7.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: We must always have regard to the fact that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty are in the position of having practically the whole of the information in respect of these properties, and all that they would have to do would be to issue orders transferring the property from themselves to the Welsh Commissioners. They have to deliver all the books and documents in respect of property transferred to the Welsh Commissioners. Finally, and I suspect this may be some of their hardest work, under the second part of the First Schedule and under Clause 33, they have to make orders
    500
    respecting adjustments, but then they are relieved of a very considerable amount of duty the moment the Bill becomes law, which they have now to undertake. While, no doubt, a certain strain may be put on their staff during the twelve months before the Bill becomes law and the date of Disestablishment arrives, I do not think that work will be a very great amount. Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have had full notice of what their duties will have to be. The work will not be sprung on them. They have not only had a year since this Bill was first introduced into this House, but they will have between the time the Bill becomes law and the date of Disestablishment six months necessarily, and twelve months perhaps, so that gives them at least two years. I do not think, if the warnings we get from another place are to be believed, that anybody anticipates that this Bill will become law within a short time after it has been read a third time in this House. Therefore I think they will have at the very least two or three years in which to prepare for carrying out those duties. There will not be really any necessity to increase their staff or to suppose that they will not be able to carry out such duties as are cast upon them by this Bill by the means at their disposal now.
    Mr. MOUNT: I am bound to say, with all respect, that I do not think that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was a very convincing one. He has omitted to mention, among the duties which will be cast upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, another duty imposed upon them by a new Clause which is to be moved by the Home Secretary. That Clause is bound to give a considerable amount of extra work. The Chancellor of the Duchy has based his refusal of this very small request mainly upon the fact that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty had already carried out a good deal of the work which they would require to do under the Bill. So far as that work has been carried out it will not require to be done again, and it is not proposed by my hon. and learned Friend that they should be allowed to charge those expenses on the Bill, but only in regard to extra expenses which may be incurred. The right hon. Gentleman further based his argument to a certain extent on the fact that there would be a very long period of time during which these inquiries could be

    501
    made, and during which the Commissioners could be carrying out preparations for the necessary work, and that therefore it would not be necessary to increase their staff. He included in that period the time between now and the passage of this Bill under the Parliament Act. I am bound to say I should have thought the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty would be going beyond what is necessary if they were to take it for granted that this Bill was going to become law, even under the Parliament Act. I think they might well be considered to be rather exceeding their powers if they went to any expense or took any real steps until they knew for certain, which I hope will not be the case, that this Bill is going to become law. The question is a small one, and the amount of money involved is not very great, and even if we do get this Amendment accepted we are not going to impose any burden upon the Exchequer, but we are going to take it out of the money which we say belongs to the Church, and which is now being handed over to the county council. On those grounds I do urge upon the Chancellor of the Duchy to reconsider his decision.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I wish also to appeal to the Chancellor of the Duchy. I do not think he has really understood the position here. It is not a question whether the amount is small or large. Here is a Bill which we are told is for the benefit of Wales, and the proposal is for that purpose to take money out of a trust fund which is now devoted in England to religious purposes of a very urgent character. The point is how can that be justified. Why should these expenses be taken from the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, out of moneys which provide pensions for poor clergy, and to make the stipends of the incumbent what we call here a living wage. I hope the Home Secretary will consider this point of principle. Surely if this Bill is being passed for the benefit of Wales, all the incidental expenses ought to come out of what I would call for this purpose the Welsh Fund in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners, and none of it ought to come out of funds which are now applicable and would now be applied to the Church in England. It seems to me on every point of principle to be quite unjustifiable to put a charge of this kind, small or great, against funds otherwise urgently needed for Church purposes in England.
    502
    I hope, therefore, that the decision will be reconsidered.
    Mr. BARLOW: The two arguments which, I understand, were used by the Chancellor of the Duchy were: first of all he said a long time will be allowed to the Commissioners and the Queen Anne's Bounty office to prepare and make ready, and, I suppose, the conclusion he wants us to come to is that it will not cost them anything. Surely it is obvious that time has nothing to do with the wages of extra clerks who would have to be paid whether they receive long or short notice. It was suggested that a great deal of work has been already done. Those who have experience of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty know how admirably on the whole their work is done. Preparing information for a Bill of this kind and looking into the legal rights of the parties are different things, and although a good deal of that work has been done, it was done some six years ago. Therefore from every point of view it will require to be repeated and re-checked in order that there may be that absolute accuracy which is so necessary when the private rights of property have to be dealt with.
    If the secular funds in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners do not bear these costs, as the Amendment suggests, then the costs can only come from one or two sources, either from the corporate funds of two institutions, or otherwise out of funds going to the representative body, and that, in effect, is imposing a burden on the Church. The Church has not asked for this injustice and has not made the alteration. It is not the body which is going to benefit, and it is the commonest rule in the administration of funds of this kind that the beneficiaries ought to bear the cost of adjustment and alteration. Therefore on those grounds I venture to urge not only is it unfair to place a burden on the two institutions concerned, because they are not going to be the bodies benefiting, but it is also unfair to place the burden on the Church funds because they are not going to be benefited, and that the secular fund which goes to the Welsh Commissioners ought to bear the cost. The second matter I wish to refer to is one of actual fact, and that is that the cost incurred will be by no means inconsiderable, and that ought to be borne in mind before this Amendment is refused.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 272.

    Division No. 542.]

    AYES.

    [7.16 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Astor, Waldorf

    Fleming, Valentine

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Forster, Henry William

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gouldlng, Edward Alfred

    Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Greene, W. R.

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bird, Alfred

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Blair, Reginald

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Hills, John Waller

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Butcher, John George

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sandys, G. J.

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cassel, Felix

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cator, John

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Swift, Rigby

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cave, George

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han, S.)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Moore, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mount and Mr. M. Barlow.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Fell, Arthur

    Newman, John R. P.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Brace, William

    De Forest, Baron

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Delany, William

    Addison, Dr Christopher

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Denman, Hon Richard Douglas

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Bryce, John Annan

    Dillon John

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Burke, E. Havlland-

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Doris, William

    Alden, Percy

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Duffy, William J.

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon S. C. (Poplar)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Cawiey, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Clough, William

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Barton, William

    Clynes, John R.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Ffrench, Peter

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Field, William

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Crooks, William

    Fitzgibbon John

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Crumley, Patrick

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cullinan, John

    Gilhooly, James

    Boland, John Plus

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Goldstone Frank

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Manfield, Harry

    Robinson, Sidney

    Gulland, John William

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hackett, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Hancock John George

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Harcourt Robert V. (Montrose)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Rowlands, James

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Meagher, Michael

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Harmsworth R L (Caithness-shire)

    Molloy, Michael

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Mooney, John J.

    Sheeny, David

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morgan, George Hay

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morrell, Philip

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Hayward, Evan

    Morison, Hector

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Muldoon, John

    Snowden, Philip

    Henderson J. M (Aberdeen W.)

    Munro, Robert

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Sutherland, John E.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Sutton, John E.

    Hinds, John

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hodge, John

    Nuttall, Harry

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Dowd, John

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jardine Sir J (Roxburgh)

    O'Grady, James

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Wadsworth, John

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Malley, William

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Shee, James John

    Waring, Walter

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Joyce, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Webb, H.

    Keating, Matthew

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Phillips, John (Longlord, S.)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    King, Joseph

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Law, Hugh A (Donegal, West)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid,Cockerm'th)

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)

    Leach, Charles

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Radford, George Haynes

    Winfrey, Richard

    Lundon, Thomas

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Reddy, Michael

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Richards, Thomas

    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move, after the word "convention" ["The expression ' Synod' includes any assembly or convention "], to insert the words,
    "The expression 'representative body' means representatives elected, whether for Wales as a whole or for northern and southern divisions of Wales, or according to dioceses."
    This Amendment must be read together with Clause 13, Sub-section (1), which provides that nothing shall prevent the
    506
    bishops, clergy, and laity from holding Synods or electing representatives thereto for the general management and good government of the Church in Wales, and the property and affairs thereof, whether as a whole or according to dioceses. I can quite see that it might appear at first sight that there was no great object in this proposal, since it is provided in Clause 13 that four representative bodies might, in point of fact, be created under the Bill as it stands. Nor have I any idea

    507
    whether or not it would be acceptable to those who are most interested to provide specially for a northern and a southern division. I cannot say, for instance, what the bishops would think on the matter, My past—I hope not an abandoned past— has not placed me at the present moment deeply in the confidence of the bishops or of those who are about to make these arrangements. But I am proposing what seems to me a desirable thing to do. There is such a difference between North and South Wales that there are in point of fact practically two entirely different nations. They differ more than any other two parts—at any rate, adjacent parts— of the United Kingdom that I know, and T wish the expression to be so defined that this representative body may provide specially for a division into North and South Wales. One hon. Member said just now that this was not the occasion for long and learned dissertations or historical researches into the past. I strongly hold that opinion, and consequently I do not propose, although it would strengthen my argument, to go into learned disquisitions as to the spheres of influence of the Silurian, the Brythonic and other elements which go to make up modern Wales.
    This question concerns the Re-establishment, as I consider it, of the Church in Wales after that Church has been deprived of a large amount of its ancient Endowments. I would look upon the matter absolutely and entirely from the modern point of view, and not attempt to imitate the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), who, whenever he addresses the House, invariably makes an incursion into history. The Leader of the Welsh Party (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) has dealt with this matter in a book which I have studied with much interest. The fact that his collaborateur is a namesake of mine also commended the book to me. The right hon. Gentleman has gone at great length into the ethnological question; he has shown that the Welsh are on a level with the old Cornish and Breton peoples and has pointed out how in Glamorgan there had been, what I suppose must be regarded as an unfortunate, invasion of the English. My point is that there are in fact so many points of difference, and that so complete is the division from the ethnological, to some extent from the linguistic, from the industrial, and from the sentimental points of
    508
    view, that it is absurd and entirely wrong in a Bill of this kind to proceed upon the basis that there is one Welsh nation. Arising out of those differences I suggest that the Bill should deal with facts, as indeed should all legislative measures, and within its four corners acknowledge what is the actual state of things. The Solicitor-General, in point of fact, in opening the case for the Bill made some reflections upon myself, which could be accepted by those who think that a change of sides is respectable only when it is gilded by office. This matter is generally argued upon the basis that Wales is a nation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued it upon that point. If he was right, I should say there was no need to make any definition, or to provide for a definition of the representative body in the manner which I desire to do by the Amendment. I submit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. I cannot see how you are to argue that North and South Wales are one unit, any more than you can argue that Devon and Cornwall are a unit. Where are we to begin and where end?
    Where are those characteristics to be found that compose a unit? The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill pointed out that in fifty years Glamorganshire had been filled with an English-speaking population. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Welsh party described it as an English invasion. By the showing of the right hon. Gentleman most immediately interested in the passage of this Bill, you have the admission of such distinction between the different parts of Wales that I think justifies, and more than justifies, the definition which I have the honour to urge upon the Committee. If you take the linguistic test, there to a great extent the argument of the other side fails. I am not prepared to say that the Welshman speaking Welsh in the North of Wales would be unintelligible in the South of Wales, or vice versa. I would not submit that, but I do urge that there are very great differences between the idioms and pronunciation, and that even in regard to the linguistic test—which I suppose would be one of those most peculiarly put forward and strongly dwelt upon—that, even that, would rather fail if you are arguing from it that North and South Wales were one homogeneous whole, to be properly dealt with by one representative body or by four representative bodies, informed by one purpose and one spirit, and so acting—as

    509
    they would in any case—if there was one for each diocese, as one whole. If 700,000 English people are found in Glamorgan shire, as the Home Secretary said the other day—and he always is most accurate, and I am sure he was accurate there—and have come in in fifty years—
    Mr. McKENNA: I made no such statement.
    Sir J. D. REES: It was ascribed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Sir J. D. REES: I regret if I have quoted the right hon. Gentleman erroneously. I have no doubt, however, that the statement is correct. If you have one-third of the population of Wales resident in one county, all English-speaking, and most of them English-speaking monoglots, where is the justice of making one representative body suffice? Canon Rashdall, a Liberal, speaking at Hereford, dwelt upon the fact in order to obtain this definition and the recognition of these two divisions. He said:—
    "Wales is two nations. The rural and Nonconformist towns are one. The Liberals of the mining districts are Liberals on general grounds, not out of opposition to the Church, which we well know is extremely strong in North Wales and often give it a complexion and character which wholly marks it off from South Wales —"
    so as to make it absolutely necessary and proper that in this Bill that patent fact, which I am sure hon. Members opposite will find it difficult to controvert, should find proper expression and recognition. I have not been able, through no fault of my own, to put this Amendment at some more appropriate place in the Bill. I would not attempt now to quote speches made in Wales in regard to this. They would bear out my point. I was so unfortunate before as to endeavour something of this kind, and when I read what I said in cold print the next morning, it occurred to me that it might be possible that my remarks would be regarded—though they were not meant so—as disrespectful to the Chair, in which case I would make a humble apology now and explain that that was not my intention in the least. No Member in the House has a greater wish to keep within the four corners of law and order than I, though some others appear to do this with more success. I shall not attempt to quote now, though those speeches would, to a great extent, bear out the argument that I am attempting to put before the House. There was a religious census,
    510
    which was taken before the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and has been repeated at intervals ever since. If we had that in Wales that also would go to a great extent to bear out my argument.
    Take the case as bearing out my argument that Wales falls naturally for ecclesiastical, industrial, ethnological, linguistic, and for other purposes, into the two natural divisions of North and South. Let me quote what happened when the United Methodist Church Act was passed. My quotation derives additional strength, seeing that it is contained in a letter of a constituent of mine. I think what follows will not be denied:—
    "In forming districts under that Act Wales was not treated as a separate nationality. The whole of the-circuits in Wales were included in District No. 2—Bristol and South Wales."
    A far more homogeneous area than those which are treated as one in this Bill?
    "District No. 9 was Liverpool and North Wales."
    I will not dwell any further on that; it illustrates my point. In the Minutes of the Conference of 1907 which led up to that Bill, it was said:—
    "Careful consideration was given to the district allocation as regards the communications, history, and commercial associations, and the need for the strengthening of the weaker districts."
    It is further stated—and the right hon. Gentleman opposite will remember it, because he took a great part in this, as he has taken a great part in most matters connected with Welsh history of recent years —in the Report of the Land Commission:—
    "Liverpool stands for many purposes in the position of the capital for North Wales."
    So it does; I know it well. I have lived in North Wales.
    "Cardiff stands in the same position as the capital of South Wales."
    That also I am in a position to speak to. Here you have—in dealing with the ecclesiastical division of the country made in connection with the Establishment—and I call attention to it—by law of a Nonconformist Church, Wales divided into Liverpool and North Wales, and Bristol and South Wales. If that is not exactly what I am arguing, it is very much the same thing; practically the same point. What I am arguing is this: The Bill does not touch Liverpool or Bristol. They come out. But the fact that the area of North and South are naturally more in touch with these great cities further north and further south of them, and have no cohesion of themselves, is a strong confirmation of the position which I venture to lay before the

    511
    Committee, and which I wish to see have legislative recognition in the Bill. Take the religious point of view. The Cal-vinistic Methodists are 5 per cent, in South Wales and upwards of 17 per cent, in North Wales. I could give statistics to the same effect showing that the religious character, as well as several other aspects, are wholly different between the two divisions. The one and only national thing now in Wales is the Welsh Church, and that is being Disestablished. I cannot understand, as the Bill provides that representative bodies may be formed for dioceses, why there should be any objection in the mind of anybody, no matter what his views may be, to the recognition of the fact that the natural divisions of the country require, or point to, the making of two representative bodies. Mark, again, the necessity there is, as I hold, for treating these two parts of the country as absolutely distinct units. Take the case of the English language. In the five Western counties, with the one exception of Denbigh, where they are 38 per cent., over 50 per cent, are English monoglots. Monmouthshire and Radnorshire contain 86 and 93 per cent, respectively. Where are the Welsh areas in those counties? Where are the Welsh in an English-speaking population of 86 and 93 per cent.? What reason is there to suppose that a representative body formed for the whole of Wales—one representative body, presumably, which I believe is in contemplation—that prima facie such a representative body would not be representative of, say, conspicuously the English community? Would it not be far better to give legislative expression and recognition to the fact that there should be a Southern representative body which would have a difference in spirit, outlook, and composition from that which has in future the looking after the interests of the Church in North Wales? Nearly 85 per cent, of the people of Wales speak English. Fifty per cent, can speak no other language. Yet it is proposed in this Bill not to acknowledge that fact, but to leave it entirely out of account, in forming these representative bodies. This, I submit, is a grievous omission, and makes the Bill entirely a misrepresentation of what is the actual position in Wales. English speakers, it may be laid down as a general rule in Wales, are not even Disestablishers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I venture to assert that as a general rule.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not keeping to the Amendment.
    Sir J. D. REES: At any rate, Sir, I was in order in my general argument, I hope, though I perhaps a little overshot the mark in my illustrations. I cannot conceal the fact that behind the Amendment as it really is—Clause 13—the definition—in Clause 35—that behind the Amendment lies the question whether or not there is a nationality in Wales—whether there is a Welsh nation. I recognise that, but it is not my fault; in order to get my Amendment accepted I have had to deal with the fact that is material to it. I trust I shall be in order in pointing out that while half the population of Wales speak English only, 15 per cent, speak Welsh only. Is that not a very material fact in defining what the representative body shall be? Is it not thoroughly material to my argument to point out that in the six northern counties which are the Welsh counties which want Disestablishment there have been the most trifling increase of the population between the last two Censuses. In three cases there has been retrogression. In the south, which is the English-speaking, progressive, and industrial part of Wales, the increases in three counties have been 18, 35 and 39 per cent. Do not these facts support my argument? I submit they very strongly support it, and are entirely relevant to it. South Wales must be treated as a separate unit and must have a separate representative body. May I dwell a moment on the character of the counties in other respects? The northern counties are chiefly agricultural, sparsely populated, wild, hilly. Take the south. There you have the rich men and miners at any rate in Glamorgan and Monmouth, and an English population in counties like Radnorshire and Brecknock subject to English influence, and is it not obvious that where these distinctions and divisions have developed in the past they will develop still more in the future? Is it not practical and absolutely essential in passing this Bill that one of the most salient facts connected with Wales should receive some, even if belated and insufficient recognition? I am anxious not to trespass upon the indulgence of the Committee, but I submit that these points and arguments are none the less important because, for some reason that I cannot understand, they are left to one who has a good knowledge of North and South Wales to bring before the Committee. I submit these are relevant points to this

    513
    particular Clause. I do not know how one representative body can perform functions which are nowhere denned. How are they to perform them by one body in respect to totally dissimilar regions? Supposing we have one body for the whole of Wales, how will that body, regarding chiefly the conditions from the South Wales point of view, be able to decide questions as to what diocese should absorb the parish of Montgomery. It would be extremely difficult, whereas if you have two instead of one, they would far more successfully accomplish their operations.
    I submit that there is nothing of similarity but all of contrast between North and South Wales. Ethnologically, linguistically, industrially, sentimentally, they are in direct antagonism. Geographically it is very difficult to get from one to the other. So far from their being any friendly feelings or any cohesion, there is nothing but antagonism between them. On these grounds I submit there is no reason whatever that points to any cohesion between these two parts of the country. I am aware of what lies behind my argument, and I will keep off that, but I protest that the considerations I am allowed to bring forward and put before the Committee, warrant me in urging the acceptance of this Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. Gentleman covered a good deal of ground, but he has not been able to come to what lies behind his Amendment. With regard to the Amendment I think the hon. Member is under some misapprehension in regard to Clause 13. I think he referred his Amendment to Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) of Clause 13 has nothing to do with the representative body. If he will look at the Clause, he will find his Amendment bears no relation of any kind to Subsection (1), but where it does apply is to Sub-section (2).
    Sir J. D. REES: I should be quite willing to take it there.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that that affects his argument in any way, but his argument is irrelevant to both. If the hon. Gentleman will reflect for a moment on what is the respective functions of these two bodies, he will see the same argument is not applicable to both bodies. They perform very different functions. As I understand the hon. Gentleman the facts and figures he mentioned were quoted to
    514
    prove one conclusion, that there ought to be two representative bodies. He applied his Amendment to Sub-section (1). Now he seeks to apply it to Sub-section (2). We have heard a great, deal about the ethnological, sentimental and industrial difference between North and South Wales, and I think the basis of his argument was that there ought to be two representative bodies. If his argument is right, he would have either one representative body, or two or four. I suppose he can take his choice again. We are not looking at Wales from a northern or a southern point of view. He said there is to be a Welsh National Church. I do not want to strike any controversial note, but I hope the Church will be a National Church for the whole of Wales, North and South, when the Bill is passed. We do not want to make these divisions. After the Bill is passed, the Church will be the Church of North and South Wales, not of divisions, as he said, but for Wales as a whole. It is quite true that under Sub-section (1) of Clause 13 we do give the bishops and clergy and laity the right to form a constitution, and we are taking into account that they may wish to organise themselves as a Welsh National Synod, or body, or according to diocese.
    The Sub-section to which this Amendment applies contemplates one representative body. The hon. Member will see, if he thinks for a moment, that is a necessary part of the scheme of the Bill, because that is a body that will deal not with doctrine or government of the Church, but deals with property. I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me that in the adjustments to be made under this Bill by the Welsh Commissioners on the one hand, and the representatives of the Church on the other, in whom property will be invested, it would be most convenient that the Welsh Commissioners should have one body to deal with for the whole of the property. That is the scheme of the Bill. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension, and I am sure he will agree that for the purposes of this Bill, taking the Bill for granted for a moment, in order to carry it into effect and to make adjustments of the property, it would be a great convenience for all interests and for one nation that there should be one representative body. Directly after this work is done, there is nothing to prevent the representative body dividing itself into committees or bodies to deal with any portion of Wales, North or South, as the case

    515
    may be. Under these circumstances the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not agree either with the Mover of the Amendment or with the hon. Member who has just sat down. I certainly do not agree with any Amendment which would split up the Disestablished Church into two Churches or four Churches. I think it is essential we should preserve as much unity as the Government allows us. We want more unity. I do not think it is in the least likely we shall in any way split up into a North and South Welsh Church, but there is something to be said for having ultimately at any rate diocesan bodies for the holding of property. I think one of the first things likely to happen if this Bill ever comes into law, is that the Church would entirely abrogate the constitution you seek to give it under Clause 13. I think this government, by Synods and representative bodies, is likely to be one of the first things they will settle, and that probably will not be the permanent constitution of the Church in Wales. This particular Amendment is designed to insert into Sub-section (2) what you have already inserted into Sub-section (1). You inserted into Sub-section (1) that you may have diocesan organisations. I am not at all sure that we ought to insert in Subsection (2), provision that you should have similar diocesan organisations to hold property, and that as you allow diocesan Synods, you should allow diocesan representative bodies. But when we come to the other portion of the Amendment, that is to the question of North and South Wales, I think my hon. Friend has overestimated the case to be met. I should most strongly oppose a North Welsh Church and a South Welsh Church, and a North Welsh Synod and a South Welsh Synod. With regard to the other question whether it would be possible to have North Wales organised for the administration of the Endowments, and South Wales organised for the same purpose, I think that is possible but not probable, and I think it much more likely it will be done on diocesan lines.
    I quite agree that there are certain conditions peculiar to North Wales, and certain conditions peculiar to South Wales, and that it would be exceedingly difficult to administer anything Welsh as a whole from inside Wales. We know that bodies representing the whole of Wales have to
    516
    meet at Shrewsbury, or London, or Birmingham, which are more convenient to get at than getting from Swansea to Carnarvon, or from Carnarvon to Swansea. There are essential geographical difficulties in treating Wales as a unit. If we were discussing Welsh Home Rule, I think there are geographical considerations which should weigh, but upon this point I invite my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, because! I do not think he would secure very much if this Amendment was inserted, partly for the reasons I have already given. One of the first acts of the Church will be to abrogate your constitution under Clause 13 and Clause 2. These adjustments are only temporary. You have these secular Commissioners and these various bodies which will have to deal probably with the Church as a whole. One of the greatest inconveniences is that you will not regard diocesan organisations any more than provincial organisations. I do not think anything-can be gained by setting up a power of this kind. Even if this Amendment were inserted it would really afford no more permanent or better solution than the very bad solution which the Bill offers.
    8.0.p.m.
    Sir J. D. REES: This Clause is so badly drawn that even experts have difficulty in making out what it means, but as my hon-Friend who has appealed to me to withdraw my Amendment is one of the pillars of the Church, I think I should not be justified in putting the Committee to the trouble of a Division, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin Division; (Lord R. Cecil) seems to me to be practically the same question we have already decided upon—an Amendment which was moved to Clause 13. If the Noble Lord' wishes to say anything on this point I shall be pleased to hear him.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think there is a distinction between my proposal and the-Amendment which has been previously-discussed. If you look at Clause 13, Subsection (1) you will see with regard to the summoning of the Synods there is nothing which lays down how they are to be summoned or how they are to be set in motion. I think it is essential that somewhere in

    517
    the Bill there should be some provision to actually set the machinery of the Bill in motion. Perhaps my Amendment would be in order if I inserted at the commencement the words "and in the case of the first Synod it means an assembly or Convention defined in regulations."
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that Amendment would be in order. I wish to say, however, that I hope the Committee will not traverse again the whole ground which was covered in the discussion on the Amendment to Clause 13, moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy).
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move, after the word "Convention" ["The expression ' Synod ' includes any assembly or Convention"] to insert the words,
    "and in the case of the first Synod means an assembly or Convention defined in the regulations made by Convocation of the Province of Canterbury with the assent of the House of Laymen of the said province."
    Clause 13, which we have already had occasion to criticise, suggested that such a Synod should be brought into being as a first step towards reorganising the Church. It says:—
    "(1) Nothing in any Act, law or custom shall prevent the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church in Wales, from holding Synods or electing representatives thereto, or from framing, either by themselves or by their representatives elected in such a manner as they think fit, constitutions and regulations for the general management and good government of the Church in Wales."
    "Synod" is a term in regard to which I should think there would be a great deal of difficulty in knowing what is its real signification. This Amendment gives a very wide power, and it suggests that the proper way of reorganising themselves would be to summon a kind of general meeting of the Church of Wales, whatever that may mean, and by that general meeting there is to be regulations and constitutions formed, and that ultimately a representative body elected which is to receive a charter from the Home Secretary. The question arises who is to summon this general meeting of the Church, and what is to be the machinery for setting it going? It may well be that the bishops will summon it. They will have to elect their representative body, and they will have to
    518
    get their charter from the Home Secretary. Unless there is some definite machinery put into the Bill the Church will be absolutely under the domination of the Minister of the day. The present Homo Secretary might be succeeded by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. George Greenwood), and on account of his determined opposition to the Church and to Christianity I should be very sorry to see him settling the organisation of the Disestablished Church, and yet it would be absolutely in the power of the Home Secretary of the day to settle down to the smallest detail how this Synod ought to be convened unless you give to some ecclesiastical authority, or some authority which meets with the approval of this House, power at the start which will overcome the difficulty. If this is not done it will be a State Church in the worst form, the very organisation and regulations of which will depend upon an assembly which can only come into being if it is approved by the Home Secretary. I see a great risk that before anyone undertakes to go to the expense and trouble of summoning this general meeting he or they will have to go to the Minister of the day and say, "If we had this, that, or the other, will you regard that as satisfactory, so that we can get our charter for our representative body later on?" They have to go to the purely secular authority and ask for consent in advance to what they propose to do. I do not think even the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) would regard that as a satisfactory organisation for his own Church, and he would not like our Church-to be bound upon starting for the first time to come to the Minister of the day and say, "Do you approve of the way I am going to summon the meeting of my Church to settle its organisation1?" I am sure the hon. Member would say that that should be a matter left entirely to the Church itself, and that is really all I am asking for. We have a body of the Church called Convocation and the House of Laymen. They are not State institutions—in fact they are purely voluntary bodies and have no existence except by agreement. We suggest that Convocation and the House of Laymen should settle the machinery by which the Synod is to come into being, and I think that is a thoroughly reasonable proposal.
    The Home Secretary did say that if the members of +he Church in Wales were to specify to him that they desired to have

    519
    a particular definition of "laity" he would put it into the Bill in the Definition Clause. According to the decision of the Chair, it would not be in order for me now to put forward a definition of "laity" in the only form in which we could accept it, namely, that it should be left to the Ecclesiastical or Church authorities to settle who the laity are. For these reasons I ask that it should be left to the Church authorities to settle the whole preliminaries of the Synod or general meeting or assembly, which is the foundation of the whole organisation and constitution of the Disestablished Church. I cannot see how such a request can be denied if the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that it meets the wishes of those who sit on this side of the House. I have no authority to speak for anybody but myself, but I say that the proposal which I am making is one which has been considered by a certain number of my friends who have acted with us on this Bill, and they approve of it. That seems to me to meet the condition which the right hon. Gentleman laid down. I do not think we are asking for anything unreasonable, and it appears to me that we are only carrying out the spirit of this Bill, much as we disapprove of it and dislike all its provisions. We do recognise that at this stage that if we have a proposal which I will not say improves the Bill, but, at any rate, makes it less burdensome to the consciences of Churchmen, we are bound to put it forward, and it must be the responsibility of the Government and the Government alone if they reject it. It is in that spirit that I move this Amendment. The Chairman, in allowing me to move this Amendment, said he did not think it would be fair to reopen the whole discussion, and therefore I will content myself by merely saying that the Committee should recollect the difficulties which were raised on this subject before, and bear them in mind in coming to a decision upon my proposal.
    Mr. McKENNA: I gather from the remarks made by the Noble Lord that he desires this Amendment should be adopted to enable the machinery of the Bill to work better. In spite of the most earnest efforts, I regret I have not been able to make clear to hon. Members opposite what the meaning of Clause 13 really is The Noble Lord appears to think that the Bill is intended to do something which it does not do. He has fears which I hope I shall be able to dispel and which
    520
    are not at all applicable to our proposal as it stands. The Noble Lord stated it would be ultimately in the power of the Home Secretary to settle how the Synod may be convened. He has in mind that the Home Secretary has the power in the last resort, by refusing to accept any particular definition, to compel the Disestablished Church to adopt the form of Government which is satisfactory to him. That is really what is understood by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can assure them that is not the meaning of the Bill, nor do I think the language of the Bill, on examination, could by any possibility bear that construction. If the Bill were ambiguous and open to that construction, I agree it would have to be altered, but T certainly would not be responsible for laying upon myself or my successors any liability to have to determine the constitution of the Disestablished Church in Wales. I would not accept the responsibility, nor would I make myself responsible for introducing such a Clause into the Bill. May I ask the Noble Lord only for a moment to leave the representative body out of account. Let us for a moment suppose the representative body is not provided for at all. What, then, will be the new constitution and how will the new constitution of the Disestablished Church come into existence? It is necessary to give the Church, so long as it is an Established Church, power to hold a Synod; otherwise, the Established Church could not hold a Synod. After the passing of the Bill and before the date of Disestablishment the Church of England in Wales will remain an Established Church, and, unless power were given to that Established Church to hold a Synod, it could not do so. We, therefore, after the passing of the Bill for the ensuing six months or a year, as the case may be, give power to the Established Church to hold a Synod in order to provide for the government of the Disestablished Church. They have got that power. Why should we lay it upon them as a duty that, as the Noble Lord says, that power should be exercised by Convocation?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, no.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, the Noble Lord says:—
    "And in the case of the first Synod means an assembly defined in the regulations made by Convocation."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is quite evident from the right hon. Gentleman's

    521
    speeches, both on this occasion and on previous occasions, that we are like those people we sometimes sec on the stage who are supposed to be fighting one another, but who never hit one another. That is a serious situation. The point is this. You have got to construct a constitution which will hold water in this sense, that the whole property of the Church will depend upon the validity of the constitution and the regulations under which that property is held.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, it will not.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Then I will reserve what I have got to say.
    Mr. McKENNA: I asked the Noble Lord, to begin with, to leave all questions of the constitution of the representative body out of his mind. I shall have something to say on that immediately. I am dealing now with the future constitution of the Disestablished Church—that is to say, the governing body of the Church.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: So am I.
    Mr. McKENNA: It has nothing to do with the representative body at all. The Established Church is empowered to hold a Synod. They do not need to call in Convocation by Act of Parliament to enable them to do that. They can do it without an Act of Parliament.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It depends upon what you mean by a Synod.
    Mr. McKENNA: We mean precisely the same as the Noble Lord's definition, "an Assembly or a Convention," which they could not hold without this Clause. The Established Church cannot now hold a Synod.
    Viscount WOLMER: They can hold a voluntary Synod.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, they could not with binding effect.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I agree.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not wish to present myself to the House as an ecclesiastical lawyer, which I am not, but I have endeavoured to inform my mind. The Church could not without this Clause hold a Synod so long as it is Established. This Clause is directed to the period after the Bill is passed, and while the Church is still Established, and we say the Church can hold a Convention. That does not in the least prevent Convocation,
    522
    in which the whole of the Church of England, whether in England or in Wales, is represented, for one moment from framing a constitution. But the Church in Wales without the English members could hold its own under this Clause. A constitution framed by Convocation could be accepted by the Welsh Synod, and if it does accept that constitution the Disestablished Church will start with that constitution; so that when the new Church, I will not say comes into existence, but when it renews its life in its new form, it will start with a constitution so framed. The representative bodies have nothing whatever to do with that at all. We do not desire that they should have anything whatever to do with what you might call the spiritual constitution of the Church, and, therefore, a separate representative body is formed for the purpose solely of acting as trustees for its property. That is the sole purpose under the Bill. It is quite true that the new governing body of the Church, which, I assume, may have been framed by Convocation in the constitution, and have been accepted by the Synod of the Welsh Church—it is quite true that that new governing body may give the representative body other functions if it pleases. But the sole function the representative body must have under the Bill is the function of receiving and holding property.
    We do not know what the constitution of the governing body of the Welsh Church is going to be. We do not know whether it is going to be one body or several bodies. We do not know whether it will be really representative of the clergy or whether it will be representative of all parties. That is no concern of ours. It is the concern of the Church. But it is our concern to see that property handed over for the use of the Church shall be held by some representative body which can be incorporated by charter and which will have a legal character. The representative body and the governing body are two quite distinct bodies. The governing body of the Church and the constitution of the Church may be framed by Convocation. The only condition is that the constitution must be accepted by the Welsh Synod. The Welsh Synod may say we wish our constitution to be purely Welsh. We will have—
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Who are "we"?
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY: The Clause says that the representative body shall be

    523
    appointed by the bishop, clergy, and laity. We want to know who are the people who are to be considered to be the laity.
    Mr. McKENNA: Let us look at the Bill and see what it says. Remember we are dealing with the English Church in Wales as it now is. There are the Welsh bishops. There are the Welsh clergy, and there are the laity as they are represented in the diocese.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Where does it say so? It is a purely voluntary arrangement.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is the government of the Church.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No.
    Sir C. CORY: The laity will have no legal right.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, and why not cut them out?
    Mr. McKENNA: If I did as the Noble Lord suggests, I should be purporting to define what the Church should be. Let us suppose that a Synod is called consisting of the bishops, of representatives of the clergy, and of representatives of the laity, such representatives being selected by the Welsh members of the Church. That would be a Synod under this Bill, and if that Synod framed a constitution, or decided to accept a constitution framed by Convocation, that constitution would be the new governing body of the Church under this Bill.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me I He misunderstands our position. It is not a question of what we like or dislike. We want something which will stand fire in the Courts of Law if any dispute arises. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would devote his mind to this point. This body will have to make regulations which will be the conditions on which Church property is held. If the House will look at Clause 3, it is as plain as a pikestaff that the existing laws of the Church have to be enforced according to the constitution of the Church. If you make the smallest alteration, you may have a cantankerous clergyman raising all kinds of difficulties. I must say that the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman is nothing but pure official obstinacy of the worst kind.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am sorry the Noble Lord has introduced an element of that sort into this Debate. As far as the Government are concerned, we have not the smallest objection to put in a definition of laymen, if such a definition is presented to us on behalf of the Welsh Church. Really—and I do not say this with any intention to offend the Noble Lord—we cannot accept his view, because, after all, he is representative only of the Church of England in England.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Welsh bishops are in agreement with the principle as embodied in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ashford Division.
    Mr. McKENNA: A definition of laymen is asked for.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why tie us down to that?
    Mr. McKENNA: Surely the Welsh bishops are perfectly competent to deal with this point.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: They cannot speak in this House.
    Mr. McKENNA: There are other ways of communicating their views to this House.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is mere bureaucracy of the worst type.
    Mr McKENNA: We want to have a definition satisfactory to the Church in Wales. I cannot accept the Noble Lord as representative of Welsh feeling. If the Welsh bishops will agree upon a definition of the term "laymen" and ask me to accept that and insert it in the Bill I am content to do so.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why confine it to the definition of "laymen." If I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that the Welsh bishops are in agreement with this Amendment, will he accept it?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, no. That is quite a different matter. We find that in the Irish case these identical words were sufficient.
    Mr. HOARE: May I point out—
    Mr. McKENNA: I know the point which the hon. Member wants to raise. In the case of the Irish Church there were at the time of Disestablishment lists of the laity, and consequently there was, in a certain sense, a definition of laity which

    525
    could be applied in the case of this Bill. I am perfectly willing to put in a definition in this Bill so as to bring it into complete analogy with the Irish case. The only condition I make is that that definition should be authoritatively put before me or before the Government by the combined Welsh bishops. I think that that is reasonable. It is not my duty to make a distinction between the Welsh and the English Church.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: You are not asked to.
    Mr. McKENNA: And therefore I do not propose myself to introduce a definition of laymen, but I am willing to do so at the request of the Welsh bishops. What is the proposal that the Noble Lord makes I He says that in the case of the first Synod the Assembly is to be defined by Convocation.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: And the House of Laymen.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes—that is to say, it is to be denned by Convocation and the House of Laymen, in which the English are the overwhelming majority.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: That does not matter.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman tells me so, but I really know enough of the controversies in the Church to know that it may be the case.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: It seems to me that Clause 13 is dividing the Church of England before the date of Disestablishment.
    Mr. McKENNA Mr. McKENNA indicated dissent.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: It is so. The right hon. Gentleman will see that until the date of Disestablishment the Church of England is whole and undivided, and the only Synod which can be called is the Synod of the whole Church of England. There is no Church of Wales before the date of Disestablishment which can tell a Synod. You cannot call a Synod of the Church in Wales before the date of Disestablishment, because there is no Church in Wales. You can only call a Synod of the members of the Church of England who are in Wales. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his Nonconformist friends must appreciate that until the Church is Disestablished the only body which can call any part of her members
    526
    together, or make any suggestions, is Convocation, the recognised governing body of the whole Church. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer that.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I think the Home Secretary is in possession.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: I only wanted to get an answer to that if I could.
    Mr. McKENNA: We are really at cross purposes. What the hon. Member says is perfectly true, but what has that to do with Clause 13, which gives express power? You have to consider what the case will be after Clause 13 is law. After that is law the bishops, clergy, and laity of the English Church in Wales—
    Colonel WILLIAMS: There will be no Church in Wales until the date of Disestablishment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not say whether there is a Church or is not a Church; all that I say is that under Clause 13 the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church of England in Wales will hold Synods.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: They can do it now.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am advised that they cannot.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Yes, they can.
    Mr. McKENNA: I can only say that I am advised that they cannot. If the hon. Member is right, the Clause is surplusage. After Clause 13 is passed they will certainly be able to hold a Synod, and the Synod which they so hold will be able to frame a constitution for the new Church. I cannot accept that the first Synod of the Church should be framed by Convocation, because, above everything else, it is my duty to safeguard the character of the constitution of the Disestablished Welsh Church, and to see that it shall be Welsh.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: You are making the constitution.
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Yes, you are making the constitution which is to form a Free Church.
    Mr. McKENNA: No. How quick the Noble Lord is to seize a bad point. The Noble Lord says that I am framing a constitution. I am not.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Yes, you are.
    Mr. McKENNA: No. I am leaving the Welsh Church to frame its own constitution, unfettered by the dominant majority in England. I see the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) opposite. He represents a very small section of the English Church.
    Viscount WOLMER: What do you know about the English Church?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is common property. After all the dissensions in the Church have not been hid. We are entitled to ask that the Disestablished Church shall be governed in accordance with its own wishes. If that be so, it is essential that the first Synod should be framed upon lines satisfactory to the Welsh, therefore we say that the first Synod must be representative of the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church of England in Wales. I repeat, that if the term "laity" is misunderstood in Wales I am willing to accept a definition that is satisfactory to the Welsh Church.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I had nothing to do with the majority of the English laity. I am one of a minority of the House of Laymen, this point has nothing to do with what is a layman in the Church in Wales. I tried to put my point just now, but the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to answer it. There will be no Welsh Church to summon before the date of Disestablishment. Is not that clear? Will there be a Welsh Church to summon? Is not the very purpose of this Bill to divide the Church, and to set up a Church in Wales by itself? That happens on a certain date, which is the date it comes into operation, and not before. I rather thought I was going to get some agreement with what I stated, but as there is no answer 'I may take it as a fact that until the date the Bill comes into operation there is no Church in Wales.
    Mr. McKENNA: Will the hon. Gentleman look at Clause1?
    Viscount WOLMER: Which part?
    Mr. McKENNA: Clause I says:—
    "the Church of England so far as it extends to and exists in Wales and Mon mouthshire (in this Act referred to as the Church in Wales)"—
    Viscount WOLMER: That is from the date of Disestablishment—
    Mr. McKENNA: It goes on—
    "shall cease to be Established."
    The term "the Established Church in Wales" is defined in the first Clause. If the hon. Gentleman says that no meaning is to be attached to those words, I do pot agree with him.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: I did not say anything of the sort. I said that until the date of Disestablishment there is no separate body of the Church in Wales. I think that is perfectly clear. That deals with the body after the date of Disestablishment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I quite agree with the hon. Member's point.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: Very well. You cannot call a Synod of any part of the Church in England, in Wales, in Scotland, or in Yorkshire, or anywhere else before the date of Disestablishment, because the Church is undivided. The Church in Wales is part of the Church of England Men may live in Wales, but they are part of the Church of England before the date of Disestablishment, and until that date every Nonconformist knows for a fact and agrees with me, because it is the charter of their freedom that they have their own governing body of their Church and the Church of England has its own established governing body, which is Convocation and no other, and it would be against every principle of Nonconformity by Act of Parliament to divide the governing body of the Church into halves before the date of Disestablishment. What you are going to do is to say that on a certain day, which is not defined, the Welsh bishops may, if they choose, say to Convocation, "We are going to say good bye to you; we are going to have a Synod of our own before the date Of Disestablishment." You ask them to set up a Synod of their own which they have no business to do. That is why I want Convocation put in. If you are going to advise that the new Church is to transfer itself in a moment, the only body which can possibly do that, properly speaking, is the governing body of the undivided Church. You cannot prevent any number of Welsh bishops, clergy, and laity meeting together before the date, because they may form themselves into a Convention of their own—but that is not a Synod of the Church—and therefore they do not want any Act of Henry VIII. for that. Anyone can have a Synod. You cannot before the date of Disestablishment empower any body whatever to form a

    529
    Synod because they have already got that which is legally a Synod of the Church, which is the house of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to bring about divisions of opinion in the Church of England by putting in the Bill a definition of laymen. That is not what we are asking. We are asking that they shall act up to their principles and not divide our Church and our governing body before the time. If they are going to cut it in halves, which is against all their principles, properly speaking, let them do it, but as long as we have a representative, governing body—a legal governing body—of our Church, they cannot before the date of Disestablishment divide that in halves and empower the Welsh bishops to divide the spiritual body of which until the appointed day the Welsh bishops and the members of the Church in Wales are still members.
    Sir C. CORY: By Clause 13 I understand the bishops and clergy and laity in Wales have the power of appointing a Synod for the government of the Church and all the administration of the Church, and also the bishops, clergy, and laity have the appointment of the representative body, who will hold the property of the Welsh Church in future. I want to know what layman has a legal right to claim to be the laity under this Clause. My right hon. Friend said he was quite willing to define the laity if the bishops of the Welsh dioceses would give him a definition of what this laity ought to be, but I entirely object to that. Why should you leave it to the bishops to say who the laity are to be?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I allowed the Home Secretary to deal with that point, because he was making, as I thought, a rather important announcement of his position in regard to it; but I think the hon. Baronet was not in the House when the Amendment was first moved. The Noble Lord who moved the Amendment thought the definition of the laity should not be made the dominant feature of this discussion. I must ask the hon. Baronet to confine himself more particularly to the Amendment on the Paper.
    Sir C. CORY: The Amendment provides that the first Synod is to be formed in a certain way, and the Bill provides that it shall be appointed by the bishops the clergy, and the laity. Therefore, I am well within the purview of the Amendment when I ask how the laity are to be con-
    530
    stituted. I object, for my part, to the proposal of the Noble Lord, and I certainly think it ought to be defined who the laity are. I entirely object to it being left to the bishops to say who the laity are, or, as will be the case under the Bill, that the bishops, clergy, and laity are to select such of the laity as suit their purpose in order to form the first Synod. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept some Amendment as to how the laity are to be called in this first body which is to form the Synod, and not leave it for the bishops or the clergy, who are the last men to whom it ought to be left, to say who these laity are. I trust the Government themselves will define in a fair and proper spirit who the laity are to be.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: There has been some complaint made in this Debate that the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment and the Home Secretary were anxious to fight, but were unable to deliver their blows at each other. I think after the Debate they have got a little nearer, and I hope to bring them to quite close quarters, because it seems to me it is not a very complicated question. The Home Secretary said that Clause 13, taken as a whole, does not deal with the constitution of the representative body. I differ entirely from that. The Home Secretary-says the House has not so interpreted it. I do not see how they can interpret it otherwise. To start with, the Clause is headed "Constitution of representative body." The marginal note to Sub-section (1) is "power to hold Synods and constitute representative bodies," and the whole of the way in which the representative body is to be brought into being is included in Sub-section (1), and Sub-section (2) only determines the way in which, when constituted, it shall become the representative body.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: No, no. The word "so" in Sub-section (2) ["appointed any persons so to represent them"] has gone out.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I do not think that makes any difference, because you have got in Sub-section (I) the machinery by which you are going to create a body, and that body is to become the representative body under the circumstances detailed in Sub-section (2)—that is, if it holds property; then by an Order of His Majesty in Council it is to become the representative body. But in order to bring it into being you must rely on the machinery in

    531
    Sub-section (1). There is no other machinery provided in the Act. It is the body which, as I say, is called into being in Sub-section (1), and which becomes the representative body when it holds property and when it has the charter. What has the body that is created under Sub-section (1) got to do? The first thing it has got to do is to determine the way in which it is going to elect the representatives to its own body. Clause 13, Sub-section (1), says:—
    "Nothing in any Act, law, or custom shall prevent the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church in Wales from holding Synods or electing representatives thereto, or from framing, either by themselves or their representatives elected in such manner as they think fit."
    Therefore, they must be already in existence to determine what they think fit
    "constitutions and regulations for the general management and good government of the Church in Wales…"
    9.0 P.M.
    This body which is to be brought into being under Sub-section (1) has to make rules and regulations for the Church for the vesting of the property in this newly created corporation, and for the manner in which the representatives to it are to be elected in future. The only question that this Amendment is designed to meet is this: Somebody has got to call together the first body that is going to determine how in future its representatives are to be elected. But the Bill is perfectly silent as to the way in which that first body is to come into being. Supposing the Act were in operation now, the first thing you have got to do is to have this preliminary meeting called. Who is to call it together? How are you going to start, it? It is to be composed of the bishops, clergy, and laity; but if the Chancellor of the Duchy were called upon to bring that body into being, to whom would he apply I How would he convene the meeting! The bishops and the clergy we know, but who are the laity? Somebody has to send out notices convening the meeting. The only object of the Amendment is to provide that this work shall be carried out by the existing body that regulates the affairs of the Church. It will have no power as to the second and subsequent meetings, because the first meeting will provide for the election of the future representatives. This is a mere matter of machinery, and unless you put something of this kind in the Bill, it is difficult
    532
    to see how the first meeting is to be called. If you leave the matter as it is, it will be simply chaotic, because nobody will know to whom to apply. I submit that the power of calling the body together should be vested in the body which exists at the present time for the regulation of the affairs of the Church. If the Government will not accept the Amendment, they should make clear how the meeting is to be called.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I quite agree that Clause 13 is somewhat unhappily drafted. I said that before, and on reconsideration I see no reason for altering that view. But we are not really discussing Clause 13 now. We are discussing the Amendment moved by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), and in my opinion that Amendment is worse than the Clause. The worst that can be said for Clause 13 is that it leaves the matter in an undefined position. The only reason why I support the Clause is because there is a similar Clause in the Irish Act which has worked very satisfactorily as I understand. There was no difficulty in Ireland in finding out who the laity were, and I do not see how there should be any difficulty in finding out who they are in Wales. We know that the Church authorities gave evidence before the Royal Commission and claimed to have 103,000 communicants in the Church in Wales. I should have thought that if they could find out that number, it would be equally easy to find out who the laity are. The hon. Member for the Western Division of Dorset (Colonel Williams) suggested another difficulty which is really no difficulty at all if he would look at the various Clauses in the Bill. The terms used in Clause 13 is "the Church in Wales." What is the Church in Wales? It is true that at present there is no Church of Wales, but there is the Church of England in Wales. There will be after Disestablishment what is meant to be the Church in Wales as defined by the first Clause of the Bill. It says:—
    .…the Church of England, so far as it extends to and exists in Wales and Monmouthshire…"
    The object of Clause 13 is to enable that portion of the Church of England in Wales to define by its representatives what its constitution is to be. The real difficulty, and I agree that there is a difficulty, is that we have no definition of "laity." The Home Secretary has pointed out, and it has been acknowledged constantly, that

    533
    there are serious argumentative difficulties in the way of definition. That is the real difficulty so far as argument is concerned, but I think I have shown that it will not be a difficulty in practice once the Act has been passed. There will not be any difficulty in finding out the constituent body of the first Synod. The sole object we have in opposing any such proposal as that made by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) is that we want the Church people in Wales to have full and perfect freedom to decide for themselves what sort of constitution they want to have. I have no doubt whatever that in practice it will be Convocation and the House of Laymen that will be consulted by the Church people in Wales. Probably Convocation and the House of Laymen will frame the constitution of the new Church in Wales, and I have equally no doubt that when the constitution is placed before the first Synod of the Church in Wales after the passing of the Act it will be accepted. We do not want to dictate in any way to the members of the Church in Wales as to how their constitution should be framed and by whom it should be framed. We do not want to put out imprimatur in advance upon any constitution that may be framed by Convocation. We want the first Synod of the Church in Wales to feel absolutely free from dictation on the part of Parliament as to whether it ought or ought not to accept a constitution framed by Convocation. If we could without fettering the freedom of the Synod of the Church in Wales accept such a proposal as has been made, we should be only too glad to do so. We agree that it is a matter for the Church people to decide for themselves. If they in their wisdom, after discussion, decide to accept a constitution framed by Convocation of Canterbury, then it is their own business and their own business only.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: That is not affected in the least, because as soon as they are met together they can frame their own constitution. This Amendment is confined to calling them together for the purpose. It is mere machinery as to how they are going to be called together.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: We are only too anxious to see what are the difficulties which present themselves to the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are in a position to speak for the Church. We are perfectly willing to meet hon. Gentlemen in these matters, which do not
    534
    concern us as long as they do not ask us, as a Parliament, to impose any restrictions on the freedom of action of the people of the Church in Wales. I quite agree that the words in Clause 13 as they stand do present argumentative difficulties, but in practice, when the thing comes to be worked out, I do not believe for a moment that there will be the slightest difficulty. For instance, the Church today has no difficulty in calling together the laity to a diocesan conference. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite give their definition and the Home Secretary says he will accept it. If the Government were to define in the Bill what the lait5' consists of, hon. Members will agree with me that it would be said they are trying to set up a limit as to what is and what is not a member of the Church of England, and to limit the freedom of the Welsh Church before it comes into being. If hon. Members opposite put forward authoritatively, and on the authority of the Welsh bishops or the Welsh clergy or Convocation, any definition which is acceptable to them of what the laity consists of, I am perfectly certain—though I am only in a position to speak for myself, yet I think I know the feelings of my colleagues from Wales sufficiently well to be able to say I speak for them—that no sort of difficulty or obstacle will be placed in the way by us if they can convince the Government that the definition of laity which they put forward is one that will be generally acceptable to the Church. It is not a matter upon which any time need be spent. We are all equally anxious that the Church in Wales should have every freedom with regard to her own constitution, and one of the first things is to see that an organisation satisfactory to herself shall be constructed. The only way to do that is to leave her absolute freedom.
    Viscount WOLMER: Really, I think that the Home Secretary absolutely surpassed himself to-night. He comes to this House, and pretends that he does not desire to force a constitution on the Church in Wales. That is the very thing which he is doing and the very thing hon. Members opposite are doing. They are forcing on the Church in Wales a constitution of absolute chaos. The point that has been made by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) the Member for Hitchin has never been answered. Here we have got a Church which has got to govern herself and to make rules and regulations for her members, and which is given the power

    535
    to alter an Act of Parliament, and yet you do not even define or allow anyone else to define what the Church is. That is an arrangement which is bound to plunge the Church in Wales into absolute chaos directly anyone, whether he is a Churchman or not, tries to contest the validity of her enactments. The point has been made ad nauseam and has never been answered. I cannot see, if hon. Members opposite do not desire to injure the Church, why they do not accede to the unanimous desire of the representatives of the Church on this question. When the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Hardy) moved an Amendment to Clause 13 he was able to state that he had behind that Amendment the authority of the four Welsh bishops and the other leaders of the Church in Wales. That has never been disputed, yet hon. Members opposite, while pretending to emancipate the Church, are refusing to the Church the status and the constitution which those who are entitled to speak for her desire.
    They do so because they say they do not wish Welsh churchmen to be out-voted by English Churchmen in the framing of the constitution of the Church by the Houses of Convocation, as if such an event were ever likely to occur. What they are obsessed with is this idea that the Church in Wales is a distinct body from the Church in England. Why, the Church in Wales was the same body as the Church in Eng land a thousand years before hon. Members opposite were born and it will be the same a thousand years after their death. What they are doing by this Bill is they are splitting off the Church in Wales and refusing to acknowledge the claim we make that the Church is one and in divisible. What they are asking for is that the Convocation of Canterbury, to gether with (he assent of the Houses of Laymen of the Province, should be allowed to define the constitution of the Church in Wales. We do not ask that because we desire to assert English superiority over fellow Churchmen in Wales, any more than Welshmen desire to assert Welsh superiority over fellow Churchmen in England. We are equal. But we assert it for this reason, that Convocation is an authority which is known to the law, and that if Convocation lays down a certain constitution for the Church in Wales—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Noble Lord that this point was
    536
    fully argued on Clause 13. The sole object of this Amendment is that Convocation shall have the right to nominate the first Synod, and that is the question which has been argued on both sides of the House. I ask the Noble Lord to confine his remarks to that point.
    Viscount WOLMER: I shall certainly confine my observation to that point, but I submit that the matter is one capable of wider interpretation. Of course, the whole point of the thing is whether the first Synod shall have behind it the legal authority of Convocation, that the first Synod should be able to claim the authority of some body recognised by law, and, of course, we demand that that body should be the Convocation of the Church, and should not be the House of Commons. The Home Secretary has said in order to remove the difficulty, that he is willing to insert a definition of laymen into this Bill if he is asked to do so by the four bishops. That in itself is a fixing of the constitution of the Church in Wales by this House of Commons. We repudiate that solution, because we deny that this House has any right to teach any constitution for the Church in Wales. The sole body that has any authority to make provision with regard to the first Synod of the Church in Wales is the Convocation of Canterbury. That right belongs to the Convocation of Canterbury; it does not belong to this House, which has no right to touch the question. For the Home Secretary to come down here and say that he is willing to insert a definition of laity into this Bill, it to offer us the very solution of the question which we repudiate. We are not going to have a definition of laity decided by this House or any other secular institution. But the point I wish to urge on hon. Members opposite is that the whole of this idea of Welsh Churchmen being outvoted by Englishmen in Convocation—so far as I understand that is the only reason they have been able to put forward against accepting the Amendment of the Noble Lord—is an outrage and an insult to Churchmen in Wales and England alike.
    The Home Secretary pretends that he is prepared to give the Church in Wales the constitution that it wants. We ask him across the floor of this House, Who is the Church in Wales? Whose word will he accept? I suppose that he would accept the word of the four bishops, and the four Welsh bishops are in favour of this Amendment. Why does he not accept it? It is, of course, because it

    537
    would touch his pettifogging theory of the Church in Wales being a separate entity from the Church in England, though the Church extends over England and Wales without interfering with the nationality of either. Is that beyond the grasp of the Home Secretary? He apparently cannot get out of his head that the Church in Wales is a separate little sect, like the Congregationalists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is no single Nonconformist body that I am aware of which has its organisation confined to Wales. Nonconformist bodies have also their organisations extending over England and Wales, yet you deny to the Church the right, alike in England and Wales, to co-operate and try to settle the constitution of the Church in Wales. Instead of that, you come here and say that Convocation, the governing body of the Church of England and Wales, shall not be empowered to decide what the first Synod of the dismembered Church in Wales shall be, and simply for the sake of this theory of Welsh nationality gone mad—though there is nothing contrary to the claim of Welsh nationality in the least—you are prepared to take away all legal basis from the governing body of the Church in Wales, and I hereby throw her affairs into chaos.
    I assert that hon. Members opposite are inflicting a cruel wrong upon the Church. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] Because the governing body of the Church will always be liable to have its authority questioned in any Law Court by anybody, Churchman or Nonconformist, who in any way disagrees with any of its decisions. Such a person could go to the Law Courts and say, "It is perfectly true that this was an enactment passed by the first Synod of the Church in Wales, but I dispute that that Synod was called together in the proper manner; I dispute that the laity were properly represented; I dispute that the right kind of laity were present; I dispute that the clergy had a proper voice in the constitution of that body." All these things would be arguable before the Law Courts, and if anybody in Wales or in England had any reason to be dissatisfied with any enactment which the Church is entitled to make under Clause 3, he might take the Church into the Law Courts and might say, "I dispute that the body was constituted in a proper way, and therefore I prefer that this Court should decide what the constitution was or ought to have been." That is why I
    538
    assert that you have not escaped from forcing a constitution on the Church in Wales. What you have done is to refer it to the Law Courts. That is what it comes to.
    Somebody must define what the first Synod of the Church in Wales shall be. We ask that Convocation should define it. The Home Secretary says that he is prepared that this House should define it if the Welsh bishops ask him to do so, knowing full well that the Welsh bishops made no such request, and very rightly, too. But we refuse the Home Secretary's solution, and the Home Secretary refuses ours, and the result will be that the constitution will in fact be decided by the Law Courts, and must be decided by the Law Courts. Therefore, you are not getting rid of responsibility, you are simply shifting on to the Law Courts, on to a lay tribunal, the onus of deciding what the constitution of the Church in Wales ought to be. The source from which the whole Church in Wales will derive her authority will be questioned in the Law Courts, and will have to be decided by the judges and lawyers of this country; and you could avoid all that confusion, uncertainty, and difficulty to which you are exposing the Church, if you accept that solution which the leaders of the Church in Wales ask you to accept, and which would not interfere with this Bill in the slightest degree or injure any Nonconformist in England or Wales if you did accept it. We regard it as a gross piece of tryanny to plunder the Church into this absolutely gratuitous difficulty and chaos. We regard it as a gross piece of tyranny that this House should launch the Church on a new era of her existence without allowing her to meet the difficulty in the manner which Churchmen desire. The hon. Baronet the Member for St. Ives (Sir C. Cory), I think, got up and raised the point as to the laity. He was not allowed to develop his argument, but he made it clear that he, for one, would be prepared to question the definition of laity made by the bishops, because he did not recognise their authority in this matter. That is liable to happen at any moment.
    If you refuse to define what the constition of the Church in Wales should be, then you leave it open for hon. Members like the hon. Member for St. Ives to go to the Law Courts and say that this Synod was not constituted in a proper manner, and to dispute its authority altogether. It is only a few weeks ago since the Home

    539
    Secretary himself did not scruple to say in this House that he was technically a member of the Church of England. As long as you get men who are prepared to make statements of that sort when they know perfectly well in the ordinary meaning of the language they are nothing of the sort at all—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because they do not believe in the doctrines of the Church of England. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] You have got the Home Secretary stating in this House that he was technically a member of the Church of England. Exactly; and it will be open to any Nonconformist in Wales to say the same after this Bill has passed. You refuse to define laity, and every Nonconformist in Wales is technically a layman of the Church of England. There is nothing in this Bill that takes away that right and status; it is not mentioned in any single Clause or Sub-section, and therefore the right will not be taken away by this Bill. He will still be able to go to the Courts and say, "I had a right to be consulted in the management of the Church; that right was denied, and therefore I refuse to acknowledge the authority of the first Synod." The whole of this trouble and of this difficulty, to which you are exposing the Church, is simply the result of this pettifogging, insular theory of absolute division which must of necessity exist between Welshmen and Englishmen when no such division exists, and which Welsh Churchmen have repudiated and English Churchmen have repudiated. Both English Churchmen and Welsh Churchmen wish that the constitution of the dismembered Church should be decided by the proper authority—that is, by Convocation of the Province of Canterbury. Hon. Members opposite come down and deny the Church that right, and by so doing they are inflicting a cruel, gratuitous and wanton wrong upon the Church.
    Mr. HOARE: I rise simply to ask a question. I am one of those who very strongly object to this House defining who is a layman or who is not, and I am not sure, speaking frankly, whether I am prepared to agree with the Amendment or not. It all seems to me to depend on who is going to summon the first Synod. I will not make a speech, because on the answer to that question depends whether I have any further observation to make. Who is going to summon the first Synod?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman has, I think, quite rightly and in his very brief inquiry, gone to the root of the whole matter, and has touched in all its essence the whole question which has now occupied the attention of the Committee for nearly two hours. The Amendment before the House is that the first Synod is to be an assembly—
    "which is so defined in the regulations made by Convocation of the Province of Canterbury with the assent of the House of Laymen of the said Province."
    I must go into this question at much greater length before I come to the answer which I propose to give to the hon. Gentleman. Supposing this Amendment was accepted, it would give statutory authority to the decisions of a purely voluntary body, namely, the House of Laymen. In answering the question which has just been put, I have to ask myself who compose the House of Laymen, and are they really representative of the generality of the members of the Church of England? I think that is a question which nobody can answer for certain. I think they do represent the opinions of a large body of the laity of the Church of England, but I am by no means certain that they represent the majority. So it comes back to this, that you propose to allow a body which has no statutory authority at the present moment to assume statutory authority over the future composition of the Church in Wales. I do not think that can be defended by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let us go a little further. At the present moment how do Synods in Wales come together? In my diocese of Salisbury we always spoke about a Diocesan Synod, though I believe in other dioceses they call it Diocesan Conference. How is the Diocesan Conference got together? It is true, I think, with regard to the four Welsh dioceses, that the composition of the conference is laid down by certain regulations. You have certain Members of Parliament of both Houses, but when you come to elected representatives how are they elected and who calls them together? What happens is this, that the clergyman of the individual parishes summons those persons whom he knows to be members of the Church of England in his parish to meet, and they elect the representatives or the representatives of those who are to go to the Diocesan Conference. There is no test in the matter at all.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Only Members of Parliament who are communicants of the Church.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am speaking of the representatives of the individual parishes who are elected by the parishioners. Some of my experience in this matter was gained when I was a much younger man. There is no test of the persons who elect the representatives, but there is common knowledge in the parish of who is and who is not a member of the Church of England.
    Mr. HOARE: Who is it gives the authority to the clergy to allow the parishioners to elect? That really is a very important point.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The summons for the Diocesan Conference comes from the bishop of the diocese. There is no difficulty in finding representatives of Church opinion in the diocese, although the constituent body in each parish is not defined by law, and is not defined by practice, but is known simply to consist of persons who are known to the clergyman of a parish to be members of the Church of England. That would be the tendency. Therefore you start from an entirely undefined basis, and from that undefined basis you gradually build up your Diocesan Conference or Synod. That is summoned by the bishop of the diocese. What happened in the Irish case? There were in Ireland thirteen dioceses instead of four as in Wales, but once the Irish Church was Disestablished there was no difference between its position and what will be the position when the Welsh Church is Disestablished. In the Irish case the two archbishops met and called together Provincial Synods, and those Provincial Synods chose certain clerical representatives. Then there were mixed Diocesan Conferences of clergymen and laymen, also built up in the same way upon a purely undefined basis, and these conferences chose lay representatives.
    Mr. HOARE: Do I understand that the ultimate authority for summoning the Synod will be the four Welsh bishops?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly. Now I come back to the Amendment. You have there the House of Laymen. It does not follow that they represent, not the view of the Church in Wales, but the view of Churchmen in Wales upon this matter. They might provide in their constitution that the number of lay representatives
    542
    and of clerical representatives should be equal. That happened in the Irish case to begin with. The clergy thought that the laity would be content with an equal number of lay and clerical representatives, but when the laity came together they desired to have, and eventually obtained, twice as many lay as clerical representatives. The same thing might easily occur, supposing the future constitution was referred to a body which was not necessarily familiar and might be very unfamiliar, not with the opinion of the Church in Wales as it is now constituted, but with the opinion of Churchmen in Wales. I am in some measure acquainted with the views of the laity in Wales. Some of the laity who dislike this Bill have told me that when they start on their mission they wish at all events to frame their own constitution themselves. They may be entirely in agreement with any constitution produced by Convocation, but, on the other hand, they may be not at all in agreement. We all wish in the future to get at the wishes of Churchmen in Wales. I use that expression because I think it is infinitely preferable to that used by the Noble Lord—"the Church in Wales." The Church in Wales is part of the Church of England at the present moment. Perhaps I had better use the expression "the Church of England in Wales." The Church of England in Wales, being an integral part of the Church of England, need not necessarily be expressing the views of Churchmen in Wales. That is the whole point which is overlooked in the argument of the Noble Lord and those who followed him.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: There is really a fallacy underlying the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Taking the way in which the House of Laymen or the diocesan conferences are built up, he says that they start from an undefined basis. The basis is not quite undefined. In the primary assemblies the parochial bodies elect their representatives to the decanal conference, and from the decanal conference the diocesan conference is elected. But even in that case there is a definition of "layman." The definition is a person who has shown himself to have the status of a communicant. That is the definition in practical use in most dioceses. It is the case in all four Welsh dioceses. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that there is no difficulty in that case. But the diocesan conferences and the House of Laymen are

    543
    purely voluntary bodies. They have no statutory authority at all; they have no power. Although they do a very useful work, fulfil very useful functions, and have added largely to the influence of the Church for good all over the country, they have no statutory position; they are really in the nature of private debating societies. I am not undervaluing their influence, but that is what, they are from a legal point of view. That being so, as they have no power, as they cannot legally control any funds, nobody objects. But when you come to" the body to be set up by this Bill, the position is entirely different. This Synod, or representative body, is to be a statutory body, and is to control funds. Therefore anybody can, and somebody very likely will, object if the definition of layman or anything else does not happen to accord with their wishes. You cannot say that because the system, which the right hon. Gentleman quite correctly described, works perfectly smoothly in the case of such bodies as diocesan conferences or the House of Laymen, therefore it will work with equal smoothness in the case of the representative body.
    Let me show what might happen. The representative body is to control these funds. In the view of many Members no doubt they are large funds, and they may become larger later on. There are Members below the Gangway who think—I do not agree with them—that larger funds are being handed back to the representative body than ought to be handed back. The representative body can only control those funds if it receives a charter. What is the position of the Government? They can refuse a charter unless they are convinced that the Synod, which selects the representative body, is truly representative of the Church in Wales. Therefore we come back to the initial difficulty. To compare voluntary bodies like the House of Laymen or diocesan conferences with a statutory body which controls funds and is constituted by Government charter is not really to compare like with like. That is the fallacy which underlies the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman himself used these words, "That it was not certain that the House and laymen represented the majority of the laymen of the country." It does not matter in the case of the House of Laymen. They have no special powers of their own, and are purely a voluntary body. It is not worth any body's while to object—
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: May I point out that I was dealing with the position as a whole as affected by this Amendment? The House of Laymen under the Amendment are going to create a constitutional House for the new Church of Wales.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No, I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is not the House of Laymen alone—
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I agree—
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is Convocation plus the House of Laymen. Surely a moderate opinion is that the laity should have a greater voice in the affairs of the Church. It may be that it is not certain that the House of Laymen, with their purely voluntary functions, represent a majority of the people in England and Wales. But does not the right hon. Gentleman see if that objection is taken in the case of the representative body or Synod that it might be fatal? You might get laity from Wales, who ordinarily take their part on the Nonconformist bodies objecting that they have not been fairly represented in the Synod. In that case the Government would undoubtedly have the right to refuse the charter to the representative body. We are driven back to this: You must have something to begin upon. You must have a definition of what is to be a Synod or empower some body or another to make a definition. I think our definition is a very fair one. You could have no better body to do it than the old-established constitutional authority of the Church, namely, Convocation. The Church in Wales is part of the Province of Canterbury. What body therefore is better entitled to define what is to be the constitution of the Church of Wales in the future than Convocation of Canterbury, in which the Church in Wales has always been represented? If we add that the assent of the House of Laymen is necessary that is a simple concession to public opinion I think of great importance. Unless some definite body is introduced or some definition given by this House—as I have said before I would rather that Convocation defined this House—unless you get somebody to start the whole thing ab initio, it seems to me that you are in an impasse, and I do not know what the results will be. I really believe there is very little between us on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite, because we do feel that we must have some legal status for

    545
    the new body to define what our Constitution is to be.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I listened in the earlier part of the Debate to the Home Secretary. He got into difficulties on this Amendment, and he began by saying that we on this side of the House consider that in the Bill as it stands something is going to happen that will not really happen. Our position is not that. It is exactly the reverse. We say that something will not happen which ought to happen. You have provided no machinery at all for the continuity of the Church, or for bringing this new constitution of the newly Established Church into existence. Unless you do provide some machinery, some authority, by this Amendment to summon the Synod, to give some outline as to what the constitution of the Synod shall be, you cannot establish any new constitution of any kind. Consider this question of the definition of the Synod—is the first essential. To create this Synod you must have some authority to summon it. Before that Synod can draw up a constitution for the Church of Wales it will become statutory, or if it remains voluntary should be in such a position that it will receive the assent of the Home Secretary, and will be regarded as a Synod, as the Assembly or governing body of the Church of Wales. Until you have done that you cannot bring this Act into force. The Church will not be a National Church.
    The two crucial points are these. The Home Secretary referred to them. He said first that he could not agree to this Amendment because the Welsh Synod might define something else as a Welsh Synod. Does this Welsh Synod include the hon. and learned Member for Carnarvon Boroughs? Does it include all the hon. Members below the Gangway opposite? They are in Wales. They are Welshmen. They might claim to come to this Assembly or Convention, which under this Clause is absolutely undefined. Unless you define that Synod in this Act, those Welshmen may claim to be members of that Synod. There is nothing in your Act saying who shall and shall not compose that Synod. It is essential to the continuity of the Church and for bringing into existence of the constitution of the future Church that you should have somebody to bridge over the interval between the existing constitution and the future constitution. You cannot start absolutely de novo. It is not as though there were no Church in Wales at the present time. You
    546
    have a Church, and you have to put in some definition, if there is to be any reality at all about the working of this Act. You seem to think it will be a perfectly easy matter as to who shall summon this Synod. You say the four Welsh bishops. Why the four together? Why should not the laymen summon it? It seems to me essential, if you are going to have an Act of Parliament to read an Act of Parliament, and if it is to be a piece of legislation at all worthy of any Parliament or any Legislature, that you ought to put this Amendment into the Bill. It is not a very drastic proposal.
    Why should it not be the senior bishop who is to summon this Convention? You ought to put into this definition machinery whereby the Convention which is to consider the new constitution of the future Church of Wales should be the safeguard which Churchmen ask to ensure that that constitution shall be a result of a bond, fide Church creation. By your acceptation of this Amendment you do enable a logical and perfectly legitimate succession to be made between the existing Church in Wales and the future organisation of the Church of Wales. I am one of the Welsh members of the House of Laymen and I am perfectly confident that although aspersions are cast upon the House of Laymen as not being representative, it is as representative as anything is likely to be, and is much more representative and a much greater safeguard to the future interests of the Church which you say you are anxious to safeguard than leaving it perfectly general and leaving it possible for any Welshman to attend that Synod. This Synod is to meet and draw up the constitution. This constitution is to be for the governing body of Wales, but they are to decide what the representative body is to be which is to hold this property and that has to receive the sanction of the Home Secretary. What is to happen if this representative body is chosen by the Synod, if somebody says it is not a right Synod, and is not a Synod representative of the Church in Wales? What is to happen if that question is taken into a Court of Law unless some binding definition is put into this Act of Parliament? I imagine it might be made exceedingly awkward. Some rather doubtful member of the Church who considers himself a member in a way, but who might not be strictly a conforming member might say, "I was not summoned or consulted, and I am not represented by this Synod." He

    547
    would send his petition to the Home Secretary and what is to happen then? It seems to me that unless you put in some definition of the first Synod you open the door to endless grievances and to possibilities of endless division and the possibility of far greater difficulties than the Home Secretary realises.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: This seems an interesting point, but it occurred in connection with the Irish Church Act. Now what happened on the first occasion? When the representative conference, including the clergy and laity, met, it was considered that nobody but communicants should be fit to be elected. That was proposed and seconded formally, and there was a Debate upon it and it was rejected by the conference and lay members, and it was felt desirable by the Church that the persons who were to form the electors were to consist, not of communicants, that was ruled out, but that practically anyone who chose to attend; and at the present moment, I believe, all that is desired from persons who desire to form part of the elected representatives of the governing body is that they should sign a declaration that they are adherents of the Church of Ireland.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is one of the reasons why we are anxious to press this Amendment. It is because there is a doubt as to what is a layman and what is the fundamental constitution and as to what is the first step. It is because of difficulties like that which arose under the Irish Church Act, that we are most anxious to have something definite in this Act. Supposing a similar resolution was proposed in the first Synod of the Church in Wales, and supposing it was rejected that communicants should be the test of the laymen, what would you fall back on? You would fall back you say upon the declaration, but you might have to fall back a great deal further. You might have the claim put forward that various people who have parishioners' rights for marriage and burial purposes should form part of that Synod, if they cared to attend. That is one of the dangers we wish to guard against, and when the Home Secretary this evening said, "I am here to safeguard this Welsh organisation, he is arrogating to himself enormous powers. He is arrogating to himself authority to say who shall attend the Welsh Synod and who
    548
    shall not. He is putting himself in the position of those people who decided in the Irish Church case for themselves, and he will say, "You have taken communicants only, and they are not representatives of the laymen of Wales." The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. How do we know, if we decide that communicants and communicants alone are to be the people to represent the laymen in Wales, that he will not say differently. Supposing we decided that the meeting took the view of the Irish laity that you ought to include any persons who are subscribers. Where are we to stop?
    Mr. McKENNA: Is the hon. Member referring to the representative body or to the governing body?
    Mr. ORMSBY-QORE: To the governing body.
    Mr. McKENNA: Then in that case I should have nothing to say to it. It would not come before me in any form at all.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does the Home Secretary mean to say that the governing body of the Church in Wales are never to have any authority or constitution? Is it to remain for ever a purely voluntary association?
    Mr. McKENNA: It has the legal status the Bill gives it. All I say is that it never comes before me. I should have nothing to do with the governing body of the Church. I should have to do with the representative body, and the sole purpose of the representative body under the Bill is to hold the money of the Church.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Then I have two-questions to ask on that. Who creates the representative body? Is it a governing body or is it not? Surely it is a constituent assembly, and surely it is the governing body which creates the representative body.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Bill constitutes it.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The representative body cannot hold property until two things have happened—until it is constituted by the Synod and until it has received the assent of the Home Secretary, and therefore the Home Secretary has got to consider, in giving his assent to the representative body whether it was properly constituted by the Synod and properly representative of the Synod, and whether the Synod was properly representative of

    549
    the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church in Wales. He cannot disregard the constitution of the Synod. It is utterly impossible, and he cannot get out of it by that method. The other point is this: If the constituent assembly of the general governing body only has to receive his assent, how is the Synod ever going to enforce its decisions even upon its own members. How is it ever going to be recognised in any Court of Law? Any clergyman taken out of his benefice for wrongdoing in any way by the authority of the Church in Wales can say, "Oh, your original Synod was not properly constituted, and your Synod is not now properly representative of the laity in accordance with the Established Church (Wales) Act." This clergyman will come into a Court of Law and under Clause 13 will say, "This Synod which has turned me out is to be representative of the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church in Wales, and it is not so." Until you have got some machinery for carrying on the existing organisation, constitution, and authority of the Church in Wales in the new Church, you will bring the Church into an intolerable legal position. You will be putting the representative body and the governing body into a position you have no right to put them in, simply because you have this scruple about accepting an Amendment of this kind.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to inform the Committee that an Amendment to the Amendment has been handed in by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), and I think it would be convenient to allow him now to put it before the Committee.
    Mr. HOARE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, with the assent of the House of Laymen of the said province," and to insert instead thereof the words, "the bishops of the Welsh dioceses."
    We have just had a most important statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In answer to a question, he informed us that the persons who would summon the first Synod would be the bishops. I think my words express what is the intention of the Government, and I think we are now in a better position to know what the state of affairs is. After the answer which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave me, I
    550
    do not see that there can be any objection to my Amendment.
    Lord R. CECIL: I will agree to that Amendment to my Amendment if the Government are willing to accept it, but if it is going to be resisted then I prefer my Amendment in its original form. I do not think the proposal of the hon. Member for Chelsea is as good as my own.
    Mr. McKENNA: It is not necessary to insert words to make the bishops summon or define the Synod. They can do so if they like. The only condition is that the Synod so summoned, which will consist of Welsh representatives of the Church in Wales, that is to say the bishops and clergy and the Welsh laity, shall agree to the Synod so defined and so summoned.
    Lord R. CECIL: Do you accept the Amendment as moved by my hon. Friend?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am stating as clearly as I can that I do not accept it. The bishops and the clergy are people who are known, but the laity are not known. I have already said that I am willing to introduce an Amendment defining the laity if the four Welsh bishops will agree to a form of definition which they wish introduced. I do not think I ought to go any further than that. I am being asked to introduce into this Clause words which would limit and define the constitution of a Synod in Wales pressed upon me by English Members who, with all their great qualities, ability, and knowledge of the subject, and devotion to their Church, are not so well qualified to speak on behalf of the Church in Wales as the Welsh Members.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Of course, we cannot accept a definition by this House as to what a layman is.
    Mr. McKENNA: It is not the Noble Lord's definition which I am willing or unwilling to accept, but the definition of laymen for the purpose of the first Synod only in order to get over a difficulty which I regard as purely imaginary. In order to meet hon. Members who think this is a difficulty, I am willing to insert words, the only limitation being that, those words should be acceptable to the heads of the Church in Wales.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: Certainly, I prefer the original proposal to its amended form. What the Home Secretary has said is rather important, and we should clearly

    551
    understand what we mean by the Synod, the representative body, and layman, when dealing with a question of this kind. I do not think we ought to have any definition of the laity of the Church by Statute in this Bill, whatever the views of the Welsh bishops may be. We are dealing with the method of calling the first Synod and not the future constitution of the Church in Wales or the representative body. Everyone will agree that it is necessary if possible to have determined and defined what the method of summoning the first Synod will be, because it will be in the nature of a Convention, and it will be the body to take steps to have the constitution of the Church in Wales settled in the future. From that point of view it appears to me that you ought to have some authority defined to do that. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that what was done as regards Ireland does not meet this case. You had the Synods there summoned by the archbishops. Of course, the position in Wales is that you merely have the four bishops of the four different dioceses, and what their powers are as regards summoning a Synod is extremely indeterminate. No one on the opposite side will dissent from the proposition that you ought to determine, if possible, so as to have no friction or trouble, how the first Synod ought to be summoned. I do not know that I should have spoken on this Amendment if it had not been for what was said by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as regards the House of Laymen. I should have thought Members on the opposite side of the House, perhaps rather more than Members on this side, would have considered that even as regards the first Synod—that is, the constitutional body— laymen should have a proper voice. As regards the position of the House of Laymen, and their being a representative body, if I may speak on behalf of the House of which I have the honour to be chairman, the Chancellor of the Duchy was really quite mistaken. The constitution of the House of Laymen does not depend upon the differing constitutions of the different diocesan conferences at all. It does not depend upon parish votes or anything of that kind.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I never said so.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: Then I do not understand with what the right hon. Gentleman
    552
    was dealing. He suggested in reference to the diocesan conferences that the House of Laymen was not a representative body of Church laymen. I say the two matters have nothing whatever to do with one another, and all he said as regards the constitution and the conferences really has nothing to do with the question of the constitution of the House of Laymen. We have endeavoured in every possible way to get the best representative body, and, in order to make the representation better, we are proposing a modified system of what is called proportional representation. The qualification is not "a communicant," but "a person having the status of a communicant"—that is to say, he has been baptised and confirmed, which is a different thing altogether. I wonder anyone on the opposite side takes a different view. I claim that the voice of laymen ought to have its proper weight, and I also claim, if you want to ascertain what the proper weight of the voice of laymen should be, you can only find it in a representative body whose constitution has been framed so as to give as fair a representation as possible to Church laymen at large. In my view, the House of Laymen is an admirable microcosm of the views of Churchmen at large. I think the views of Church laymen ought to be ascertained and have their due weight, and that is the meaning of the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin. Why is that so? They are to have some determinate method of electing the first Synod. Why should the Chancellor of the Duchy throw cold water out? I understand his view to be that if the four bishops agreed he would not mind. Why are not laymen to have a proper voice? They are just as much members of the Church, and are entitled in all matters of organisation to have a voice. We are not dealing with matters of doctrine: we are dealing with matters of constitution and of organisation, and it certainly astonishes me to hear hon. Members opposite—to hear the Chancellor of the Duchy take up an attitude of this kind—i.e., that the lay representatives are not to have a very full voice in these matters. That is really the question here. I do not wish to repeat what has been said before, but I repudiate what has been said by the Chancellor of the Duchy —that they are not to have a proper voice in the representation.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: On of the greatest titles of the Church to respect and

    553
    confidence has in the past been her exceedingly comprehensive character. One of the highest duties and functions of the Church of England has been to render pastoral care to those who it may be are simply parishioners, and so long as the Church retained that comprehensive character that was one of her greatest characteristics. Directly you Disestablish the Church she at once loses that claim over these indefinite members, and we have this paradox, that whereas one of her titles to greatness was her indefiniteness, directly you put her on the same footing as other religious denominations you will have of necessity greater definiteness. I have considerable sympathy with the Home Secretary in what he said as to the bishops, and his willingness to agree with them as to what should be the definition of laymen. I think, if I remember rightly, he said that for his part he would be perfectly willing to accept as a definition of laymen that which is accepted by all four Welsh bishops as the proper definition of the Diocesan Conference. But that has not found a place in the Bill, and we are left therefore at the moment with my Noble Friend's Amendment which is the best we can do on the present occasion to define laymen. It has, I think, been demonstrated that some definition of laymen is desirable. I agree that one of the most urgent reforms of the Church of England is that there should be a rather larger part given to the laity. But until the Government have made up their minds to come here with an authoritative proposal how to define laymen the best thing we can do is to take the old constitutional body and join with it a voluntary body of laymen. I think such an arrangement would be acceptable to Churchmen in Wales. If we vote for this Amendment it does not follow that on subsequent occasions we shall close our minds altogether to the proposal of the Home Secretary.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the Home Secretary should have accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea. Our point is that the Amendment is not so satisfactory as my Noble Friend's Amendment. I do not think the Home Secretary really understood the position. But the main point is that we desire that the Disestablished Church, under this new departure in its career, should start with a governing body about the spiritual title of which there should be no dispute or ambiguity whatever. Therefore we are
    554
    anxious that it should trace its authority back to a spiritual authority, and beyond all doubt that is the Convocation of Canterbury, which is the parent of the Church in this matter, assisted by the House of Laymen. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps) that it is very proper that the laity should have a voice; proper not only because we desire the laity should assent to it, but also proper because they are, by the will of Convocation itself, part of the concerted body of the Representative Church Council. That is by far the best solution of the difficulty. I understood—although I was not present at the time—that the Chancellor of the Duchy attached importance to the provision that the bishops of the Welsh Church should be the deciding authority.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. I was asked who would summon the Synod. I said the bishops.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The point we are contending for is that it should be given to Convocation or to the bishops, and that it should not be decided by this House. The Home Secretary comes forward and proposes some sort of private negotiation with the four bishops, with a view to incorporating the decision the four bishops and he come to in this Bill. That would not give to the Synod the spiritual character we desire to give to it. That would make the Disestablished Church in Wales, in current phrase, a Church by Act of Parliament. It is precisely that we desire to avoid. We desire that the governing authority of the Church in Wales should be a purely spiritual body. If the right hon. Gentleman had liked to put in that the bishops should choose the lay qualification and define it, that would be a tolerable solution. It would not be the best. By far the best course is to adopt the Amendment of my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) and put the authority into the hands of Convocation. It certainly would not meet UB to have negotiations with the bishops, as if the bishops were party leaders like my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. Lyttelton), or any other right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. That would be an unsatisfactory way of approaching the subject. It would make the title of the Synod in future a purely House of Commons title, which would be unsatisfactory to the spiritual views of the Church. I should have thought there would be no difference between the people who are to summon

    555
    and the people who are to define. You must define before you summon. In asking people to a dinner party, you define in your own mind who are fit guests, and then you summon them. The process of definition must come before the process of summoning. As the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Hoare) is not accepted, I think it would be better not to take a Division on that, but rather on the Amendment of my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil).
    Mr. HOARE: I moved my Amendment because I saw it was obvious that the Government would not accept the Amendment of my Noble Friend. I thought from the answer the Chancellor of the Duchy
    gave me they would have accepted mine. In view of what has taken place I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    It being half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th November, 1912, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 279.

    Division No. 543.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Forster, Henry William

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Glazebrook, Capt. P. K.

    Peel, Captain R F.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goldman, C. S.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Grant, J. A.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Greene, W. R.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Roberts, s. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bird, A.

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Royds, Edmund

    Blair, Reginald

    Hills. J. W.

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hoare, Samuel J. G.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boyton, J.

    Hohler, G. F.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Stanier, Beville

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Campion, W. R.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cassel, Felix

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cator, John

    Kerry, Earl of

    Swift, Rigby

    Cautley, H. S.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cave, George

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Larmer, Sir J.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Chaloncr, Colonel R. G. W.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Loyd, George Ambrose

    Touche, George Alexander

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S.Geo.,Han.Sq.)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Doughty, Sir George

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Moore, William

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Fell, Arthur

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newman, John R. P.

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. M. Barlow.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Money, L. G. Chlozza

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Adkim, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Morrell, Philip

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Gulland, John William

    Morison, Hector

    Agnew, Sir George

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hackett, J.

    Muldoon, John

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Hancock, John George

    Munro, R.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Murray, Cant. Hon. A. C.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Neilson, Francis

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Barton, W.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nuttall, Harry

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Boland, John Pius

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Grady, James

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Malley, William

    Brace, William

    Hinds, John

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hodge, John

    O'Shee, James John

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Burke, E. Havlland-

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hudson, Walter

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Clough, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Radford, G. H.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crooks, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Cullinan, John

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Davies, E. William (Eiflon)

    King, J.

    Richards, Thomas

    Davies, Timothy (Louth)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    De Forest, Baron

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Delany, William

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cock'rmth)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Leach, Charles

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robinson, Sidney

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Dillon, John

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Doris, William

    Lundon, T.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Duffy, William J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    McGhee, Richard

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sheehy, David

    Falconer, J.

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

    Shortt, Edward

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Manfield, Harry

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Field, William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Snowden, P.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Martin, Joseph

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Gilhooly, James

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Gill, A. H.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Meagher, Michael

    Sutton, John E.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Molloy, M.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Tennant, Harold John

    558

    559

    Thomas, James Henry

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wardie, George J.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon,(Glas.)

    Wadsworth, John

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. H. Webb.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Wiles, Thomas

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendment and new Clauses proposed by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's Sitting.
    Government Amendments made: After the word "house" ["The expression 'house' includes "], insert the words "and any house of residence provided for an assistant curate."
    After the word "to" ["appurtenant to the house"], insert the words "or usually occupied with,"—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Government Amendment proposed: After the word "tenths" ["in lieu of first fruits and tenths "], insert the words "but annual sums in lieu of first fruits payable at such times and in such manner as tenths are payable shall be treated as included in the expression 'tenths.'"— [Mr. McKenna.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment, be made."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes. 161.

    Division No. 544.]

    AYES.

    [10.44 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hackett, John

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Crooks, William

    Hancock, John George

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Cullinan, John

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Dawes, J. A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    De Forest, Baron

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Delany, William

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hayward, Evan

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Dillon, John

    Hazleton, Richard

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Barton, William

    Doris, William

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Duffy, William J.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bentham, George J.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hinds, John

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Hodge, John

    Boland, John Pius

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Falconer, James

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Brace, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Hudson, Walter

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Field, William

    John, Edward Thomas

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gilhooly, James

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Joyce, Michael

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Keating, Matthew

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Greig, Colonel James Wilson

    Kilbride, Denis

    Clough, William

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    King, Joseph

    Clynes, John R.

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gulland, John William

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sheehy, David

    Lawson, Sir w. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    O'Dowd, John

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Leach, Charles

    O'Grady, James

    Shortt, Edward

    Lewis, John Herbert

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    O'Malley, William

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Snowden, Philip

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    O'Shee, James John

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    McGhee, Richard

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Sutton, John E.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    M'Callum, Sir John M,

    Pirle, Duncan v.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Tennant, Harold John

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Thomas, James Henry

    M'Laren, Hon.F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Manfield, Harry

    Priestley, Sir Arthur Grantham

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Radford, G. H.

    Wadsworth, John

    Martin, Joseph

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Reddy, Michael

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wardle, G. J.

    Molloy, Michael

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Richards, Thomas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Morrell, Philip

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Morison, Hector

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Muldoon, John

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wiles, Thomas

    Munro, Robert

    Roche, Walter F.

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Nellson, Francis

    Rowlands, James

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKlnnon (Glas.)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Cave, George

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Baker, sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hltchln)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, south)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hills, John Waller

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh' Hicks

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Bird, Alfred

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Blair, Reginald

    Fell, Arthur

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Hunt, Rowland

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Boyton, James

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Kerry, Earl of

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Forster, Henry William

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Butcher, John George

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Campion, W. R.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Cassel, Felix

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Cator, John

    Grant, James Augustas

    Lewisham, Viscount

    562

    563

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Swift, Rigby

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm, Edgbaston)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hen. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Malcolm, Ian

    Rawson, Colonel Richard

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Moore, William

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Mount, William Arthur

    Royds, Edmund

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    White, Major G. D. (Lance., Southport)

    Newdegate, F: A.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Stanier, Seville

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir H. Carlile and Mr. Hoare.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Stewart, Gershom

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Further Government Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the words,
    (4) For removing doubts it is hereby declared that the principal or other member of Jesus College, Oxford, who may from time to time be rector of Llandyssil, shall as such be treated as a lay impropriator
    and not as the holder of an ecclesiastical office.—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 162.

    Division No. 545.]

    AYES.

    [10.55 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Acland, Franics Dyke

    Cotton, William Francis

    Gulland, John W.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Crooks, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hackett, J.

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Cullinan, J.

    Hancock, John George

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Da Forest, Baron

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Delany, William

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Barton, William

    Dillon, John

    Hayward, Evan

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Doris, William

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Dully, William J.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Duncan, C. (8arrow-ln-Furness)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Black, Arthur W.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Boland, John Pius

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hinds, John

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hodge, John

    Brace, William

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Falconer, James

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Hudson, Walter

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Ffrench, Peter

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Field, William

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    John, Edward Thomas

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Gilhooly, James

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Goldstone, Frank

    Joyce, Michael

    Clough, William

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Keating, Matthew

    Clynes, John R.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Kilbride, Denis

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    King, Joseph

    Nuttall, Harry

    Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Lambert, Rt. Hen. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sheehy, David

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Shortt, Edward

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Lawsen, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    O'Grady, James

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Leach, Charles

    0'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    O'Malley, William

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Lundon, Thomas

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Shee, James John

    Sutton, John E.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Outhwalte, R. L.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

    McGhee, Richard

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Maclean, Donald

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Macneill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Pirle, Duncan V.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    MCallum, Sir John M.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Verney, Sir H.

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines.,Spalding)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Wadsworth, John

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Manfield, Harry

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Radford, George Heynes

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Martin, Joseph

    Reddy, M.

    Wardle, G. J.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Kendall, Athelstan

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Richards, Thomas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Molloy, Michael

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Morgan, George Hay

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Morrell, Philip

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Morison, Hector

    Robinson, Sidney

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roch, Walter F.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Muldoon, John

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Munro, Robert

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Rowlands, James

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Neilson, Francis

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Nolan, Joseph

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Scanlan, Thomas

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Campion, W. R.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Cassel, Felix

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Cator, John

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Goldman. Charles Sydney

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cave, George

    Grant, James Augustus

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts. Hitchin)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Croft, Henry Page

    Hills, John Waller

    Bird, Alfred

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Blair, Reginald

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Grifflth

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Boyton, James

    Fell, Arthur

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Hume-Williams Ellis

    Burdett-Goutts, William

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Butcher, John George

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    566

    567

    Kebty-Fietcher, J. R.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Stewart, Gershom

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Swift, Rigby

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. Hints, Mile End)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Terrell, George (Wins N.W.)

    Lewisham, Voscount

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Ramsey)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Rt.Hon.A. (S. Geo. Han.Sq.)

    Rawlinson, Frederick Peel

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Royds, Edmund

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Moore, William

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Newman, John R. P.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Sassoon, Sir Philip.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, West)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. E. Cecil and Mr. Hohler.

    Nield, Herbert

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Stanier, Beville

    CLAUSE 36.—(Short Title.)
    This Act may be cited as the Welsh Church Act, 1912.
    Government Amendment made: Leave out the words "1912," and insert instead I thereof the words "1913." — [Mr. McKenna.]

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Building Charges).
    (1) As respects the charges on the emoluments of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales created in favour of Queen Anne's Bounty under the Clergy l Residences Repair Act, 1776, the Pluralities Act, 1838, the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, 1871, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act, 1836, or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act, 1840, as amended or extended by any subsequent enactment, which are subsisting at the passing of this Act, Queen Anne's Bounty shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, ascertain, and by order declare which of those charges were created for securing money raised for the purpose of property to be transferred to a county council, and where raised partly for the purpose of such property and partly for the purpose of other property may by their order make such apportionment as may be necessary.
    (2) On the determination of the existing interest of the holder of any such Ecclesiastical office in the emoluments of his office the charge comprised in such an order as aforesaid, or the apportioned part thereof, shall become a charge on the pro perty for the purposes to which the money
    568
    was raised, and on the county fund of the county to which the property is transferred, and all other property shall be exonerated therefrom. In other cases the charge shall on such determination become a charge on the property for the time being vested in the representative body, and all other property shall be exonerated therefrom.
    (3) Orders of Queen Anne's Bounty under this Section shall be made with the concurrence of the Welsh Commissioners or, in default of such concurrence, with the approval of His Majesty the King in Council given on the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
    (4) Nothing in this Act shall affect any 'such charge as aforesaid whilst the existing interest of the holder of the ecclesiastical office in the emoluments of his office continues.—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Clause read the first time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW ClAUSE.—(Appointment of Notaries Public).
    As from the date of Disestablishment the powers of the Archbishop of Canterbury in respect to the appointment of notaries public to practise in districts wholly within Wales or Monmouthshire shall be transferred to the Lord Chancellor.—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Clause read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 162.

    Division No. 546.]

    AYES.

    [11.6 p.m

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Millar, James Duncan

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Goldstone, Frank

    Molloy, Michael

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Mond, Sir Alfred M,

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E, (Dorset, E.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gulland, John William

    Morrell, Philip

    Alien, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morison, Hector

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Hackett, John

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hancock, J. G.

    Muldoon, John

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Munro, R.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Neilson, Francis

    Barton, William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nuttall, Harry

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Boland, John Plus

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Dowd, John

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Grady, James

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Brace, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hinds, John

    O'Malley, William

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hodge, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Shee, James John

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hudson, Walter

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pirle, Duncan Vernon

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfollk, E.)

    Clough, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, T. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pringle, William M, R.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Radford, G. H.

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Joyce, Michael

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Crooks, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Reddy, Michael

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cullinan, John

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    King, J.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richards, Thomas

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    De Forest, Baron

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Delany, William

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneslde)

    Dillon, John

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Doris, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rowlands, James

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Maclean, Donald

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Falconer, James

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Sheehy, David

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Shortt, Edward

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Manfield, Harry

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Field, William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Martin, Joseph

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Gilhooly, James

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Gill, A. H.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meagher, Michael

    Sutton, John E.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Wiles, Thomas

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wardle, George J.

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Thomas, J. H,

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKlnnon (Glas.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wedgwood, Joslah C.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wadsworth, John

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Nield, Herbert

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Forster, Henry William

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Baker, Sir Randolf L, (Dorset, N.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Perkins, Waiter Frank

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goldman, C. S.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Grant, J. A.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

    Beach Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peef

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bird, Alfred

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Royds, Edmund

    Blair, Reginald

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hills, John Waller

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boyton, James

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Butcher, John George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stanier, Beville

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cassel, Felix

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddlngton, North)

    Cator, John

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Swift, Rigby

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cave, George

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchln)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Thomson W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han. S.)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Croft, H. P.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Doughty, Sir George

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Moore, William

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Fell, Arthur

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Peel and Captain Knight.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (27th January).
    The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKEE, pursuant to the Order of 14th October, 1912, proposed
    572
    the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "TORCH" AND "PROMETHEUS."
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I desire to call the attention of the House to a matter to which I referred on 31st October on the Motion for the Adjournment of the

  573
  House. It relates to His Majesty's Ship "Torch" and also to His Majesty's Ship "Prometheus." I would remind the House of the facts I then brought forward. The "Torch" is a ship of about 1,100 tons which is commissioned on the Australian station. She was commissioned in April, 1911, to cruise in the unfrequented waters of the Southern Pacific. When Captain Carver arrived from England he found the ship was in a very unseaworthy condition. The amount estimated as sufficient by the Sydney Dockyard for the repair of the ship had been stated to be £354. The Captain of the ship remonstrated, and said the amount was totally inadequate. In doing so, he not unnaturally encountered a certain amount of opposition from the dockyard authorities at Sydney. After an expenditure of a little over £1,000, the ship was sent to sea, and cruised for six months around the Pacific Islands. During that cruise he was on one occasion at a harbour in Fiji, at a crisis in our national affairs when relations were strained with a foreign power. This harbour in Fiji was the landing place of the Pacific cable. The "Torch" and the "Prometheus," both of them in a dilapidated state, were lying in the harbour at a critical time, which fortunately did not develop into anything more serious. On his way from one of the islands to Sydney his propeller dropped out of the ship.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill) admitted these facts in the statement he made on the 8th January. He has said also that the dropping of the propeller was not due to any defect in the ship or to any defect which should have been repaired at the dockyard, but he omitted to state that the Captain of the ship himself investigated the cause of the mishap, and found round three-quarters of the circumference a deep crack filled in with some material to a maximum depth of five-eighths of an inch. The defect was in reality the cause of the loss of the propeller. The ship was towed back to Sydney Harbour and was there inspected by the same officer who had been in charge of the dockyard and with whom the Captain of the "Torch" had had a certain amount of friction when he had remonstrated as to the condition of the ship. This officer reported to the Commander-in-Chief on the Australian Station to the effect that the ship was very clean and generally efficient, that the bedding and general cleanliness of the ship's company
  574
  was satisfactory, and that the marine detachment was smart and clean. But he went on to find fault with the conduct of the captain as regards the disciplinary measures taken, on the ship during the cruise. I allude to that not because I wish to go over the whole question of the dilapidations, but because I want to touch on the manner in which the Admiralty has dealt with Captain Carver and the other officers of the "Torch."
  The Commander-in-Chief, on receiving the report of this officer who inspected the ship, and who has since been censured by the Admiralty, called on the captain of the "Torch" for an explanation with reference to the severe punishments which it was alleged he had inflicted during his cruise. The captain, in a long report, explained all the cases brought forward, and also said that as one of the reasons for what might have been regarded as the somewhat stricter discipline than usual the ship was in a bad state and he was obliged to work the men harder, and they had never really, from the start of the Commission, had a fair chance. I submit that the ship's company had an unfortunate beginning with the ship, and that the condition of the vessel from the outset was such that it was necessary to accept a comparatively low standard of order and discipline. The Commander-in-Chief, replying to the report, concurred that the ship's company was handicapped on commissioning by the ship still being in dockyard hands, but added that the observations of the captain—i.e., "it was, moreover, evident that the ship was not to be put in thoroughly efficient order, a fact which invited the opinion that ' anything would do"—had no justification, and was disrespectful. He added that the correspondence would be forwarded to the Admiralty with the punishment return. On receiving that report the Admiralty issued a report superseding Captain Carver, who accordingly came home, and asked that his case should receive further consideration at Whitehall.
  On the I8th July he received a letter from the Secretary to the Admiralty saying:—
  "I am commanded by their Lordships to inform you that they are not prepared to re-open the question of your supersession, which was based on matters immediately connected with your conduct to the Commander-in-Chief and to your ship's company, but that inquiries will be made of the Commander-in-Chief, Australia, with regard to your subsequent complaints against the-Dockyard authorities."

  575
  This officer was superseded on the ground of disrespect, and the grounds of that disrespect I have already mentioned. With regard to that, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Commander-in-Chief on the Australian station had informed Captain Carver that he had telegraphed to say that on further consideration there was no disrespect intended, and that he had asked that this officer should be retained in command of the ship. In spite of that the Admiralty superseded him. Since then the matter was raised in the House on 31st October as regards the condition of the "Torch." The Admiralty fully admitted the disgraceful state of repair in which this ship was sent to sea. They censured the Dockyard officer at Sydney and other officers, and in view of that fact I submit that the Captain of the "Torch" has been fully vindicated as regards his action in protesting against the condition of the ship. This is not a matter personal to one individual. I know that the House is rightly jealous of any question of an individual's grievance being brought before them. This is a matter which affects the whole Naval service; it is that of an officer who knows that his ship is in a thoroughly unsea-worthy condition, that if she met with a heavy gale she would in all probability go to the bottom, and who in this case objected to the condition of the ship on the ground that she was not in a state of fighting efficiency.
  If officers are to be superseded and driven out of His Majesty's service because they have the independence and initiative to stand up to the authorities, and state what are the facts, then it is indeed a very bad state of affairs, and one which must be very bad for the whole Naval service. In this case it is accentuated by the fact that this officer had on no fewer than seven occasions received the thanks of the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, or the Foreign Office. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that to receive the thanks of a public depart-ment is a very great thing indeed. It is not often that a public department give their thanks to officers. During his very last cruise in the "Torch" this officer received thanks for services rendered in a punitive expedition in the Solomon Islands, where an English missionary had been murdered. He carried it out with fifty men out of a crew of 108, made a night inarch through the jungle, with the loss of only two
  576
  wounded, and severely punished the village which was responsible. For that he received the thanks of the Colonial Office. On the same voyage he had been down in diving dress to examine the bottom of a stranded British steamer in the Friendly Islands. For that he received the thanks of Lloyd's through the Admiralty. Two years before, when commanding the "Swiftsure" in the Mediterranean, he received the thanks of the Admiralty for having been down in diving dress and cleared a chain from the propeller, and although he was Commander of the ship he worked for ten hours under water single handed. This is the official letter that came from the Admiralty:—
  "In reporting the clearing of the propeller Captain Thursby observed—' The chain became foul at 2 p.m. and was cleared by midnight, largely owing to the personal exertions of Commander Carver, who put on diving dress and worked single handed till it was clear, and I am commanded by their Lordships to convey to you an expression of their appreciation of your conduct on this occasion."
  That was only two years before, when he was Commander of the "Swiftsure." In the report on the condition of His Majesty's Ship "Swiftsure," the late Admiral Curzon-Howe, than whom I am sure no better officer ever hoisted his flag in the Navy, said:—
  "The Swiftsure is admirably clean and ill excellent order. The inspecting officer lias never seen one cleaner for many years. The ship's company are a strong, willing and very well disciplined body of men. Great care has evidently been taken by Captain Thursby in their organisation and clothing. The late executive officer must be credited for some of these results, Commander Carver."
  That was only two years before this case of the "Torch." In this case the Admiralty at the time they superseded him could not have known, I believe, that the "Torch" was in a terrible state of disrepair, which they have since admitted. I do not believe if they had known that was the case, if they had received the earlier report of the Commander-in-Chief, stating that on further consideration there was no disrespect intended, they would have adopted the course which they have in this case, and I therefore ask the First Lord if he cannot see his way to ordering a new investigation of this case as regards the Captain of the ship so that an officer who has a splendid record, like this man has, shall not be superseded merely upon a Press report in a Sydney paper. That was really practically the ground upon which he was superseded—that his ship's company had been too harshly treated. There are other ships in the Navy which have lately broken down and whose conditions has been, proved to be deplorable—

  577
  in the case of the "Pandora" and the "Prometheus," now in dock, holes were actually corroded right through the bottom of the ships. I suggest that further inquiry should be held into the condition of these ships serving abroad. In 1871 a Select Committee inquired into the case of a ship which was nothing like as bad a case as this or the other two I have mentioned. They censured not the officers of the dockyard—not the officers of the ship, but the Admiralty officials responsible for sending the ship to sea in that condition. I therefore beg to ask that the First Lord of the Admiralty will first of all reconsider the case of Captain Carver in the light of the admissions he has made, and that he will cause a further inquiry to be made into the condition of His Majesty's ships abroad.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The hon. Gentleman was less concerned, I think, with the defects of the "Torch" than with the merits of Captain Carver. So far as the "Torch" is concerned, I have already given a full answer to the House. It has been admitted that the "Torch" proceeded to sea in May, 1911, under conditions which fall short of the standard of efficiency required for His Majesty's ships. After searching inquiry the Board of Admiralty came to the conclusion that the officers responsible could not be dealt with by court-martial, but that it was a case for administrative and disciplinary action. The disciplinary action that it was taken included that the Captain in charge received an expression of the severe displeasure of the Board of Admiralty, and was informed that but for other considerations he would have been superseded in his appointment. Secondly, the officers of the yard immediately concerned have been severely censured, and various other measures have been taken. I should like to point out that the defects which existed in the "Torch" were not due to any refusal on the part of the Admiralty to provide the necessary funds for the repair of the vessel. Every request made by the Dockyard authorities was granted in full, and if the regulations had been properly observed by the Dockyard authorities, no ground of complaint would have existed. That is the explanation I have given on the subject of the condition of the "Torch," and I have not a word to add to it. Nor do I see any need for a special inquiry such as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. But to-night for the first time
  578
  of the various occasions when he has raised this question he has, I think, indicated both the source of his information and the reason of his activity. They both arise from the fact of Commander Carver's supersession. It is not very difficult for me to see the source of all this detailed information of a very partisan character, and a very exaggerated character. [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Order."]
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Exaggeration! [Holding up a portion of iron.] Look at this piece of the "Torch." [Interruption.]
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If the House wishes to hear what the Minister in charge of the Department has to say on the subject, hon. Members should listen as well as speak. In crowded debates when there are only a few minutes time, it is very unfair to deny the Minister the chance of making an answer. I shall go on in my own way. The duty of Ministers and others who speak on this side of the House is to make certain that they are not bullied and intimidated. [Interruption]. We have no desire to trespass unduly on the attention of the House, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to keep up a running fire of interruptions after the case has been fully stated by the hon. Member on his own side, and after the case has been listened to very attentively by others, he is simply denying the ordinary freedom and liberty of debate, and that really does not very much affect the Government. If Ministers are not to be allowed to make their statements freely and without interruption in their own way and in their own time, it will be found that the House and not the Government will suffer.
  I come now to the case of Captain Carver. The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman (Major Archer-Shee) was that he had been superseded because of his independent and strong character, which led him not to submit to any defects in the condition of ships and so forth. Captain Carver was superseded because of the punishments he inflicted on the men of his crew during the period the "Torch" was in commission and under his command. The case was dealt with in the ordinary manner by the Naval officials responsible for the disciplinary conduct of the Fleet at the Admiralty. Whenever the return of the punishments came home it was clear that a perfectly extraordinary and unprecedented condition had prevailed on the "Torch." It was decided

  579
  according to Service opinion that this officer was no longer fit to be left in sole charge of a small ship, where he was sole arbiter of the happiness and the position of the men and boys under him.
  In the quarter ending 30th September, 1911, there were 123 punishments awarded to a ship's company of ninety-five men and boys. Some of these punishments were entirely unauthorised and illegal. They included such punishments as 'being ordered to the masthead illegally, and being kept in irons and eventually deprived of badge and reduced to the second class for conduct for refusing to go; seven days' cells in the refrigerating room; two men deprived of good conduct badge for failure to obtain soundings early enough when approaching an anchorage. These were punishments affecting the whole future position of these men. I have here a list of punishments for very small offences which, not in the opinion of anyone who could be accused of considering the matter politically, but in the opinion of naval officers dealing with their own comrades in the service, are unprecedented, unusual, and severe beyond all ordinary comparison. You have got to consider officers: you have got also to consider men.
  I do not wish to underrate the good qualities of Commander Carver, though I am not sure that he has not done full justice to them in the mouth of the hon. Member, but I quite recognise his dash in expeditions with natives, and that his record in many ways is a good one. But the condition of the crew, the punishments inflicted upon them, and the general methods by which discipline was maintained during this period, which are out of all proportion to any ordinary system in the Navy, clearly show that he is not a man who can be trusted to command a small ship, though possibly in other positions under superior authority, and in close touch with superiors, he might conceivably have been employed. In my experience of this House, which has extended over twelve years, I have seen a good many personal cases dealt with in
  580
  the House, including some in which the hon. Gentleman himself was concerned, but I never remember a personal case in which an attempt has been made to reflect upon the ordinary administrative action of the department in which any advantage accrued either to the service concerned or to the individual principally affected.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I only desire to enter a protest against the right hon. Gentleman in attributing motives to my hon. Friend. On the disciplinary action taken by the Admiralty I desire to make no comment. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken for his department, and stated for his department what the House is bound to accept, I that this action has been taken by the responsible naval officers who control discipline in the Navy, and I am sure that nobody in this House desires to criticise action of the kind taken to maintain the discipline of the Navy by the responsible naval officers. But I rise to protest against my hon Friend being charged for having made the very definite statements which have been proved to be true. With regard to the neglect of the maintenance of ships upon distant stations I only desire to say that I am perfectly certain that if officers on distant stations in charge of dockyards know very well that it is in the mind of the Admiralty that efficiency comes first and economy second things of this kind would not occur. When people hear that no actual demand has been made which has not been complied with that is only part of the story. The House cannot deal with officers in charge of dockyards. The House can only deal with the Admiralty. The House holds the Board of Admiralty responsible for it. I do' not comment on what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the naval officer concerned, but I do think that the House has a right to complain of the spirit in which he dealt with the complaint that was raised.
  And it being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put.
  Adjourned at Thirteen minutes before Twelve' o'clock.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Fees Paid to Members of Parliament (Barristers).
  Fees Paid to Members of Parliament (Barristers).
  Road Board (Grants in Ireland).
  Road Board (Grants in Ireland).
  Income Tax (Wasting Assets).
  Income Tax (Wasting Assets).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSION (OVERTIME).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSION (OVERTIME).
  DISPENSING MEDICINES.
  DISPENSING MEDICINES.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  FORM 125 (SCOTLAND).
  FORM 125 (SCOTLAND).
  Road Maintenance (Sligo Corporation).
  Road Maintenance (Sligo Corporation).
  Technical Schools (County Wexford).
  Technical Schools (County Wexford).
  Artillery Ranges.
  Artillery Ranges.
ROYAL NAVY.
  MEAT SUPPLY.
  MEAT SUPPLY.
  H.M.S. "LAPWING."
  H.M.S. "LAPWING."
ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL
  CHURCHYARDS.
  CHURCHYARDS.
  Factory Inspection.
  Factory Inspection.
  Feeble-Mubded Wander.
  Feeble-Mubded Wander.
  Exchange Estimates (India).
  Exchange Estimates (India).
  Purchases of Silver (India).
  Purchases of Silver (India).
  Vaccine Lymph.
  Vaccine Lymph.
  Limited Liability Companies (Balance Sheets).
  Limited Liability Companies (Balance Sheets).
  Wheat and Flour.
  Wheat and Flour.
  Wheat Imports.
  Wheat Imports.
  Underground Telegraph Cables.
  Underground Telegraph Cables.
  Post Office Factories (Transfer of Men).
  Post Office Factories (Transfer of Men).
  Mail Van Drivers (Belfast).
  Mail Van Drivers (Belfast).
  Army Discharge (Mr. Stickney).
  Army Discharge (Mr. Stickney).
  Salford Branch Post Office.
  Salford Branch Post Office.
  Regent's Park (Bedford College).
  Regent's Park (Bedford College).
  Co-operative Credit Societies.
  Co-operative Credit Societies.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
MARKET GARDENERS COMPENSATION (No. 3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 195.)

KIRKCALDY DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Short Title.
2. This Act may be cited as the Kirkcaldy District Water Order Confirmation Act 1912.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN THE EARL OF CRAVEN formally moved to substitute "1913" for "1912."
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out ("1912") and insert ("1913").—(The Earl of Craven.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, Clause 1:
Short Title.
1. This Order may be cited for all purposes as the Kirkcaldy District Water Order 1912.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN THE EARL OF CRAVEN moved a similar Amendment in this clause.
Amendment moved—
Schedule, clause 1, page 6, line 20, leave out ("1912") and insert ("1913").—(The Earl of Craven).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE IMMUNITY OF TRADE UNIONS.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE*THE EARL OF DUNMORE rose to call attention to the recent decision of this House as the Final Court of Appeal respecting the immunity of trade unions from civil liability for wrongful acts; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to propose any alteration in the Trade Disputes Act, 1906.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in raising this question it will be necessary for me to point out, as briefly as I can, what happened in the remarkable action of Vacher and Sons v. the London Society of Compositors. The case turned on the
384
interpretation of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and the question was whether or not a trade union could be sued for libel. Vacher and Sons are a firm of printers who brought an action against the London Society of Compositors for libel and conspiracy. The plaintiffs' complaint was that this society had untruly represented them in print by describing them as a firm who dealt unfairly by their workmen. In reply to this action the Society of Compositors entered no defence, but applied to have the action annulled on the ground that such action was barred by Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. That section provides that an action against a trade union in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union shall not be entertained by any Court.
In this case the decision of the Courts upheld the contention of the defendants, and in the House of Lords, the final Court of Appeal, the Judges were unanimous in this decision—a decision, I might point out, based on the words of the Act and not on the supposed intentions of the Legislature. I do not intend to enter into the legal arguments involved. I merely wish to draw the attention of the House to the essential point which came up for decision in this case. That point was whether the immunity which the Trade Disputes Act undoubtedly confers on trade unions extends also to other instances or whether it is confined to cases in which a trade dispute is involved. Under the decision I have quoted it has been made quite clear that this immunity applies to all circumstances. The legal anomalies which surround the position of a trade union to-day are so great that they make it very difficult for the public to grasp the full effect of this recent decision, but when they discover that this Act has placed trade unions above the law not only in connection with trade disputes but at all times, I think they will be somewhat surprised at the apathy of His Majesty's Government.
I ask the House to consider the effect of this recent decision. A trade union cannot be sued for any tortious act. That is to say with the exception of breach of contract, any injury, any wrong for which the law ordinarily provides a remedy by an action for damages can be committed by a trade union with absolute impunity, for they are above the law. They alone of all the people

385
in this country are allowed to slander, libel, or maliciously prosecute any one whom they may wish to injure. They may go further and compel others to commit breaches of the law. They may compel employers to unlawfully terminate contracts of employment; they can compel workmen to terminate contracts of service without giving legal notice; they can blacklist whom they like. These wrongs and many others can be committed by trade unions without rendering themselves liable to any civil process of law. It is, indeed, in their power to rum any person with absolute impunity and their victim has no civil redress. This is the position now reached, a position which is injurious to the best interests of trade unionism. I do not suggest that trade unions should have unreasonable restrictions placed upon their legitimate objects, such as the power to enforce collective bargaining. It has been recognised that the right to strike should be protected, although I think in justice the right to work should also be protected. But the powers accorded to trade unions under this recent decision have now undermined every principle of justice and equity. I venture to say that no section of the community has suffered more than members of the trade unions themselves. Large numbers of these have been dragged into wholly unnecessary and. useless strikes, which have involved them in much unnecessary suffering and privation.
The history of trade union legislation is a curious exposition of the difficult which the Legislature sometimes finds in transforming its intentions into Acts, and although I would not venture to give any opinion as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government in regard to this latest phase in trade union legislation, surely it cannot have been the intention of His Majesty's Ministers when they introduced the Trade Disputes Bill in 1906 that it should have borne the interpretation which has since been put upon it by the legal mind. This is a question I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack—Was it in the minds of His Majesty's Ministers to grant trade unions this immunity from the ordinary process of the law as exemplified by this recent decision of the Courts at the time that they introduced the Trade Disputes Bill? That is a question which I trust the noble and learned Viscount will answer. It will at any rate help to clear up
386
the situation for the ordinary citizen. If it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that trade unions should be placed above the law, I venture to say they are embarking upon a road of which nobody can see the end. It is impossible to conceive a state of things in which a voluntary organisation enjoying the rights of a corporation is deemed to be within the law when claiming protection for its own property but outside the law when inflicting injury on other people's property.
If we look back over the history of trade union legislation, we see that up to the year 1905 the trade unions themselves did not claim the sweeping immunities from the ordinary process of the law which were accorded to them by the Government in the following year. From the Taff Vale case, in July, 1901, down to the introduction of the Government Bill in 1906 no responsible trade union leader ever laid claim to such monstrous powers over their fellow men as have since been accorded them. Your Lordships will recollect that in the year 1905 a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on behalf of the Trade Union Congress, and Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Wilson of the Durham Miners' Union, were selected as the official spokesmen on that occasion. I have read the speeches of these gentlemen who spoke on behalf of the trade unions, and I find that throughout their speeches they declared that the trade unions did not desire and did not aim at obtaining powers to molest their fellowmen or to do things which would be illegal for individuals to do. All that they wanted to obtain was some measure of immunity for trade union funds when individuals acting without the sanction of a trade union committee over-stepped the limit of the law. It is clear, therefore, that in 1905 the trade unions did not themselves claim the powers which have since been given them.
The attitude of the trade unions is, indeed, shown again if you look at the Bill which was introduced into the House of Commons in 1902 by Mr. Atherley-Jones, K.C.—a Bill which received the backing of many of the most experienced of the Labour leaders. That Bill purposely left trade unions responsible if it were proved that their council, or their committee, or their governing body were privy to the committing of unlawful acts. I think that Bill may be taken to embody the aims of the trade union leaders up to the year 1905,

387
and I venture to think that it was not at the instance of the more experienced and the more sober-minded of the trade union leaders that His Majesty's Government drafted their Bill in 1906, giving the much wider immunity that that Act confers. Anyhow it is certain that immediately after the passing of that Act a different atmosphere was created. With the removal of all responsibility the internal discipline of the trade unions disappeared. The Act has led to unauthorised strikes which have not only resulted in a great loss to our trade but have also inflicted a great deal of unnecessary suffering on thousands of workmen who have been thrown out of employment. I am sure that we are all on this side of the House sympathetic towards trade unionism. I personally regard it, if rightly directed, as one of the strongest factors working for the good of the industrial classes in this country; but this Act of 1906 has undoubtedly thrown a great deal of power into the hands of the extremists. There is no doubt that under present circumstances that Act is operating against the best interests of trade unions. There is a Trade Union Bill at the present moment before Parliament. It may or it may not become law. But in considering the objects of that Bill I think the decision which has been given in the Vacher case bears directly on the issues involved, for the Act of 1906, as construed in the Vacher case, virtually declares that trade unions may do as they like to the injury of other people with complete immunity from civil liability. In such circumstances the two Questions which I have addressed to the noble and learned Viscount are Questions to which I trust we shall receive an answer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Earl who has just put this Question was not in this House in 1906, and therefore could have taken no part in the interesting and remarkable debate which took place at that time. I say "interesting and remarkable" because of the principles which were then laid down by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition as regards the function of this House. He pointed out that he did not like the Bill; that there were many points in it, and I think principles in it, to which he would take exception. But he went on to say that the function of this House was not to check the fully considered decision of the constituencies, but to interfere only when it
388
considered that the Government of the day had not a sufficient mandate or when matters had not received the full amount of deliberation to which they were entitled. Accordingly he recommended your Lordships to pass the Trade Disputes Bill, and your Lordships did pass it without interfering with it and without question. The noble Marquess further pointed out one reason which reconciled him, or at any rate somewhat mitigated his dislike, to that course: the fact that the employers of labour in the House of Commons had not lifted up a finger—I think that was the phrase he used—against the Bill. The Bill was passed with the general assent of the House of Commons doubtless for very much the same reasons which actuated the noble Marquess in advising this House not to oppose it. I make these observations not in the slightest sense in any tone of reproach, but as a preface to what I have now to say in answer to the noble Earl who has addressed this Question to me.
The Trade Disputes Act of 1906 was, like many other measures, passed to deal with a balance of evils. There are evils whichever course you take in regard to this most difficult and disputed part of labour legislation. There are evils in leaving anybody, as the noble Earl has said, open to injury to his property or injury of other kind at the hands of a trade union and unable to sue that trade union. On the other hand there are great evils, which were vividly placed before the public at that time, in allowing the funds of hundreds of thousands of innocent persons who depend upon those funds for their sole provision for sickness, old age, and other contingencies, to be made the subject of executions and judgments in respect of the acts of those who carry on things at a distance and act without any authority, express or actual, from the persons whose funds they were affecting; and it was because of the serious consequences to those funds and because of the great hardships which the doctrine of constructive agency brought about that the agitation for the protection of trade unions arose. Like the noble Marquess himself, I have always felt critical about the remedy which was adopted. I should have preferred rather to have restricted the general principles of the law of agency, useful in other cases but inapplicable when you are dealing with the case of trade union funds. I should have rather proceeded on the footing of special restriction of the law of

389
agency. I said so at the time. My views were not adopted by the majority of those concerned, but f was the less troubled on that account because the result would have been precisely the same. Whether you proceeded by way of restricting the law of agency or whether you said simply that a trade union was not to be sued, the result was this—that the funds of trade unions, used no doubt for the purposes referred to but used far more for making provision for the sick and aged and for those who were in need, would remain free from execution as the result of tremendous judgments like that in the famous Taff Vale case.
The noble Earl is under a misapprehension when he thinks that trade unions can put the machinery of oppression in operation with impunity. The individuals who put that machinery in operation remain just as liable as ever they did before. If some one purporting to act on behalf of a trade union libels people carrying on a business, such as in the Vacher case, or if the acts done in a case like the Tall Vale case were done again to-day, the individuals who did them would be liable to every process, civil and criminal, to which they were liable before. The only point is that the funds of the trade union could not be got at. Those who really have the major part of the interest in those funds and who may be hundreds of miles off and know nothing of the disputes out of which the matter arose, are the only people whom the Act in substance protects. The law as declared by the supreme tribunal of this country in the Vacher case seemed fairly plain from the language of the Acts It certainly was present to the minds of those who minutely discussed the Trade Disputes Bill in both Houses in 1906, and the reason why they were not disturbed by it was that they preferred that it should be so as being the minor of two great evils. They recognised that we were legislating for the protection of trade union funds and were leaving the law in the condition in which for a long time it had been believed to be—namely, that only the individuals actually taking part in doing the wrongful act were amenable to the process of the law. That belief had proved to be erroneous. In a Common Law action you could, by a process which was a little circuitous but none the less effective, get at the trade union. This House, sitting in its judicial side, decided in the Tail Vale case that that was the law of the land, and it was because of the results of that declaration of the law,
390
opening up as it did a way of getting at the sick and benefit funds and other funds of trade unions, that an agitation arose in the country for the consideration of the question which formed ultimately the subject of the Act of 1906.
I need not say that this was thrashed out on almost every platform, and the result of the discussion was that Parliament by an overwhelming majority decided in favour of passing the Act of 1906. Therefore the noble Earl is under some misapprehension when he speaks as though the other clay there had been a revelation of a new principle suddenly burst upon the country. On the contrary, the immunity of trade unions was thoroughly discussed, and, in whatever form you passed amending legislation, was bound to result. I take the view that the operations of trade unions have been to the great benefit of the community, and that what blunders they have made and what harshness has arisen from their operations have been, on balance, outweighed by the enormous advantages which they have had in establishing a better equilibrium between Labour and Capital, and in advancing the interests of what, after all, is the largest part of the community of this country.
It is impossible to deal with the questions which the noble Earl wishes dealt with in the sense which he indicates without going back upon the principle which was adopted in 1906, adopted in the other House, and in this House on the advice of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who pointed out his own dislike of many provisions in the Bill, but, I think very much on the grounds which I a m putting, recognised that here you had the deliberate and considered decision of the constituencies and it was not a thing beyond which Parliament could go. I ask anybody who knows the tendency of public opinion whether it is in the least probable that the constituencies have gone back on the conclusion to which they then came. It is very obvious, I think, that they have not, and that any attempt to deal with this question would fail in practice as I am bound to say it ought to fail. I am not oblivious to the fact that we are dealing here with the conflict of two principles, but, as I have pointed out, people who are injured by trade unions have the redress against individuals which was believed to be the only remedy in times gone past. That is my answer to the noble Earl's Question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite sure your Lordships will believe it when I state that none of us sitting on this Bench desire in anything we say to call in question the beneficent work of trade unions. As far as I know I have never uttered a word in the whole course of my public life derogatory to trade unions as such. No doubt the trade unions have been guilty of excesses like every other organisation, but on the whole I should agree with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and I am sure we all should agree, that on the whole the equitable conduct of industry in this country would be impossible without the trade unions, and that subject to good conduct and proper management on their part they can confer nothing but benefit on the community. But having said so much, I wonder why the Lord Chancellor began his observations by the elaborate preface in which he recited, rather incompletely I thought, the attitude of my noble friend who leads the Opposition at the time of the passage of the Trade Disputes Act. What was his object? Does he desire on the part of His Majesty's Government to evade the responsibility for that Act? He seemed to think that he gained some dialectical advantage by throwing upon my noble friend the onus of a certain joint responsibility with the Government for the Trade Disputes Act. If that was not the reason, I fail to know what the noble and learned Viscount's reason was.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The reason was for the purpose of showing that the conclusion come to was a conclusion in accordance with common-sense and was concurred in by both sides.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The fact that it was concurred in by both sides stands upon record, and it could have been recited by the noble and learned Viscount in one sentence; but, on the contrary, he was at pains to show the attitude of my noble friend who sits behind me. Undoubtedly we thought that that was a. Bill which ought to pass into law because it represented in a most emphatic form the judgment of the House of Commons representing as we believed at the time the judgment of the constituencies. We did not think that if it had been possible at that time for example, to have had a referendum, on the subject, any different result would have ensued than did result according to the decision of the House of Commons. We
392
believed that they had the people behind them, and, acting upon the well-known views which we have always expressed from this Bench as to the proper functions of your Lordships' House, my noble friend advised that no opposition should be made to the Bill. But the noble and learned Viscount and his colleagues represented the majority in the House of Commons. They have the whole responsibility. It is no good saying for a Party purpose that my noble friend, representing the great tradition of the House of Lords, recommended acquiescence in the Bill. It is no good trying to shunt part of the responsibility for the effect which an ill-conceived measure may have had upon the fortunes of the country.
I am not going to argue the question of the Trade Disputes Act here. Undoubtedly there is something to be said for it. Neither do I intend to go through the arguments for or against it. But there is one point to winch I should like to call the noble and learned! Viscount's attention, and it is this. He spoke with reprobation of the state of things which existed before this Act passed, under which a merely technical connection between some official and the owners of the funds—that is to say, the working class at large—threw upon those funds responsibility for what the agent chose to do, a responsibility which, if that act of his was a tortious act according to the law as it then existed, involved those funds in very great liability. But, my Lords, I do not think my noble friend Lord Dunmore was speaking of any purely technical matter. What he called your Lordships' attention to was this, that even when the general policy of a trade union, conceived by the officials of the trade union undoubtedly in the interests of the trade union, inflicted a great wrong on individuals, under the law as it has been passed by His Majesty's Government the wronged individual has no remedy. It is not a technical matter at all; it is a substantial matter. The connection between the agent and the owners of the funds is not a technical connection. The policy is carried out apparently according to the wish of those by whom the agent is appointed. It is easy to see that so vast a power as that may lead to great abuse, and abuse not against the rich only but against the poor. It is quite clear that the same law which protects the acts of trade unions when operating against a rich firm would also protect them when operating against a very

393
poor humble individual; and if it be true that the result of the Trade Disputes Act is the oppression of poor individuals, then undoubtedly my noble friend Lord Dunmore is fully justified in calling the attention of Parliament to the condition of the law.
It is evident in the face of these vast powers which Parliament has entrusted to trade unions, that we require to consider very carefully the working of this Act, and bring before Parliament from time to time any facts which may emerge as to its operation and as to its possible danger. Possibly it may hereafter be found that the method which the noble and learned Viscount himself seems to have preferred in dealing with this particular difficulty may be a better remedy than the one which the Government adopted. I am not sure that I heard him correctly, but I understood him to say that the particular way in which he would have dealt with the difficulty was not the one which was ultimately adopted by the Government in the House of Commons. It may be, as I have said, that that may be a better remedy; but whether that be so or not, I think we may say with great confidence that in view of the novel procedure and powers of this Act it deserves from time to time the very careful consideration of Parliament.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, as a matter of personal explanation I would like to reply to one or two remarks of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. First of all he suggested that there was some remedy open to the injured individual. But what is the remedy? If be brings a criminal action he can obtain no damages; he can obtain no recompense. He could also bring a civil action against the individual. But this is the position. A strong and powerful corporation, for that is what it amounts to, with vast funds at their disposal, can use their agents, who have not got one penny at their backs, to maliciously prosecute, libel, and slander anybody they like. The funds are absolutely safe, and it is not worth the while of anybody to take action against the individual agent of the trade union. I do not think the noble and learned Viscount would himself support such a contention. In fact, I think he showed throughout his speech that lie was not altogether enamoured, I will not say with the Government Act, but with the working of the Government Act as interpreted by the Courts in the Vacher case.
394
Then the noble and learned Viscount went on to say that the Bill of 1906 when introduced had received the full and considered opinion of the constituencies. I venture to say that the constituencies had not the remotest idea of how this Bill was going to work out, and that when they realise what the effect of this recent decision in the Vacher case amounts to there will not be that unqualified support of the Government Act of 1906. The noble and learned Viscount has informed us of two facts, first that it was in the minds of His Majesty's Ministers when they introduced their Bill in 1906 that it should bear this interpretation which has since been put upon it by the legal mind; and in answer to my second Question I understand that His Majesty's Government have no intention of altering in any way the provisions of that Act. I have to thank the noble and learned Viscount for giving me this information and for meeting my criticisms of a Government measure with that courtesy which he always extends to us on this side of the House.
LORD CHARNWOOD*LORD CHARNWOOD also had a Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to recent labour disputes, to the unfortunate results of Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and to the danger attending too ready intervention by the Government in strikes, and to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether they will watch any further tendency to the employment of libel or other tortious conduct as a weapon in trade disputes with a view to the amendment of the said section if necessary.

2. Whether the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, have been found to place any obstacle in the way of the prosecution of any persons whose conduct amounts in effect to intimidation.

3. Whether, in view of the temptations to violence and intimidation which arise out of the employment of pickets, and in view of the ineffectual and sometimes harsh operation of attempts to check these abuses by the prosecution of individuals, they will consider (in connection with any measures which they may be preparing for the better settlement of trade disputes, or otherwise) the question of more satisfactory regulation by Statute of the employment of pickets, and the question of making the organisations which employ them responsible to the Courts for their action.

4. Whether, in future, the intervention of the Government in trade disputes will, so far as possible, be limited to the regular action of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise partly for the purpose of pushing a little further if I can the question which has already been raised by the noble Earl

395
opposite, and partly for the sake of raising a further question—that of the intervention of the Government and of Parliament in trade disputes. In doing so I feel sincerely that I owe your Lordships an apology because I am well aware how many noble Lords there are who are far better qualified to deal with this subject than myself. There is, however, something slightly repugnant in the task of calling in question the misdoings and occasional follies of working men's organisations as if they were the most important part of what is called labour unrest, and therefore perhaps it may be as well that some of the things I have to say should be said by a person who happens to have no interest whatever in the question of Capital or Labour, to be a very firm believer in trade unionism, and to look at the matter in many respects, as I confess I do, rather from the point of view of labour men.
Apart from one section in it, the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 was, I believe, a wise and necessary measure. The position previously was that whereas statesmen had long been agreed that strikes, generally speaking, ought to be lawful, yet no actual strike could be carried out or could even he commenced without incurring a vague but really formidable danger from the Common Law. That is a position to which I am sure none of your Lordships would wish for one moment to return, and those who now criticise the working of the Act do it with the full conviction that working men ought to be just as free to resort to strikes if they see fit as a single employer always has been free to resort to the method of lock-out. If before the Act trade unions were subject to an unjust or bad law, the natural course was to subject them to a just law. But the course which was actually taken, exempting them practically from the control of the law altogether, was one which I must say struck plain men of all Parties with considerable amazement and even shocked them.
I listened to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack with a great deal of sympathy because, as we all know and as he practically confessed, he is one of those who favoured a very different course from that which was actually taken. But I confess he astonished me very much by saying that Section 4 of the. Act of 1906 represented—I think his phrase was—the "fully considered decision of the constituencies." I do not believe for one moment that the average elector con-
396
templated anything like the result that has ensued. Speaking as one who was a candidate for Parliament in the preceding General Election and who very often had, as all candidates had, to consider this question, I should have said without hesitation that candidates for Parliament generally had a strong feeling that trade unions were in a difficult position which ought to be remedied, but beyond that very few candidates and hardly any of the electors, excepting the leaders of trade unions, had gone into the intricacies of this extraordinarily difficult subject; and I persist in thinking, in spite of what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount and to some extent confirmed by the noble Marquess opposite, that it is an amazing thing to most people in this country that the Legislature should have said to trade unions, "You may use your powerful organisations for any purpose of wrong-doing that may hereafter present temptations to you, and if you do so your organisations shall not suffer therefor, and the injured party shall have no remedy except the unprofitable and invidious remedy of individual action against some trade union officials, none of whom are men of substance and some of whom may quite likely not be the real parties to blame."
We know really how this came about. Your Lordships know well how easily working men may be led to embrace some trenchant proposition, which does not express at all their real wants and of which they would themselves disapprove if they at all realised its full implication. We all know that trade union leaders were led in this connection to put forward a somewhat extravagant demand. That is natural. But what I think did strike most people as by no means natural and as not very glorious was that, first a majority of the Members of the House of Commons, then the Cabinet of the late much-respected Leader on this side, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and then I must respectfully say your Lordships' House, should have surrendered absolutely to that demand. Perhaps I may be forgiven for expressing strongly my deep conviction that real sympathy with working men and a real solicitude for the progress of Labour do demand of us a certain amount of courage, of frankness, and of firmness in resisting upon occasion the ill-considered demands that may sometimes be formulated by Labour leaders.
Now a word as to the practical working of this Act. Quite conceivably unscrupulous persons—for there are unscrupulous men among trade unionists as among all other classes—might find the weapon of libel circulated amongst an employer's customers an exceedingly formidable weapon in a trade dispute. But I do not wish to comment further on the question of libel. I want to say a few words upon the effect of this Act with regard to violence and the threat of violence. I need not dwell at any length on the disagreeable topic of the extent or the gravity of intimidation in trade disputes. It is quite enough that I should refer your Lordships to the wise and weighty words which were addressed on that subject by the Prime Minister to a deputation of working men not many months ago. The subject is certainly a serious one. It involves to some extent the question of the law in regard to picketing, and I may be excused if I go into it in a little detail. It. is a delusion to suppose that picketing can never be necessary for a perfectly legitimate purpose, and it is a delusion also to suppose that picketing can never be in fact peaceful picketing. I believe in some instances pickets have actually been of use and of assistance to the Police in the preservation of law and order. Nevertheless it is beyond question that the practice of picketing does present very great temptations to violence and intimidation, and that those temptations are frequently yielded to. In part that is a question of the administration of the Criminal Law. There is, I believe, an impression abroad that the Act of 1906 in some way weakens the Criminal Law in dealing with cases of actual intimidation. I believe that that is a complete mistake, and I have put down a Question on that subject. It would be very useful for it to be known that that impression is erroneous. But the prosecution of individuals is in this sort of case, it seems to me, a very ineffective remedy, and it can only be made effective in proportion as you run the risk of getting into gaol a considerable number of men of a stamp which it is very undesirable you should get into gaol—men often with whose temptations I at any rate, I confess, have some sympathy.
Far the more effective remedy would be to make the organisations which employ these men responsible for their actions, and I venture upon three quite definite
398
suggestions. In the first place, that you should prohibit by an amendment of the law the watching or besetting in any case of the house in which a working man lives—the practice of domiciliary visits which intimidate a man's wife and children; in the second place, that picketing—which I remind your Lordships at the very best is prima facie a nuisance—that the right of picketing should be restricted to accredited agents of trade unions; and, lastly; that the organisations which employ them should be made responsible in damages for the actions of those individuals. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack made reference to the fact that the trade union funds which would thus be made liable in some cases for heavy damages may be employed for sick benefit and other similar purposes. That is perfectly true. At the same time trade unionists have always insisted—in my judgment rightly insisted—that no penny of their funds should be tied down to those beneficent purposes. They have rightly insisted that they shall be free to spend their last shilling on the purposes of a strike, and while that is so it is certainly reasonable that those funds should be liable for damages in respect of any wrongful act which may occur in the course of a strike. I venture to press this point with the conviction that you will do no harm to the Labour movement by curbing the excesses which have marked recent disputes; you will do no harm to the Labour movement by purging it of what I venture to call the dirty element which to a certain extent it contains. While I have very little doubt that responsible spokesmen of Labour would be apt at first to repudiate the suggestions I have made, I also have no doubt at all that upon full consideration they will in their hearts be very glad that their protest should be over-ridden.
I pass to the question of Government intervention in trade disputes. In that connection I would like first to make clear a point which I do not think is clear in the mind of the public generally, or indeed in that of a great many men who take part in strikes. We have had during the last twelve months several strikes of hitherto unusual character. Certain working men have had a grievance—let me say at once in my conviction very often a real grievance —against their employers, and upon that has followed a strike, not only upon their

399
part but on the part of a very much larger number of other working men who did not allege that they had any claim against their employers such as would give good ground for a strike. These latter men take part in what is known as a sympathetic strike, and probably very often seem to themselves and seem to a large part of the public to be coming in a very natural and amiable way to the support of their comrades who have.a grievance. But what is the nature of the support which they give? What does it depend upon? It will he obvious to your Lordships that the pressure of a strike upon the employer whose men have a grievance is not increased—it is, upon the contrary, greatly relieved—if there is a strike on the part of the men employed by all his competitors in business who might get orders from him; and the only possible policy of a strike of that nature, the frankly avowed policy of it, is to force the hand of the Government and of Parliament by the fear of widespread public injury. That, my Lords, took place in the great Coal Strike, and in the great Dock Strike of last year.
I am not saying this for the sake of suggesting that strikes of that character should be made unlawful. They were deliberately legalised by the Act of 1906 upon the express recommendation of the Royal Commission on Trade Disputes; and the law which in Germany and in the United States—I mean so far as federal law applies in the United States—prohibits strikes of that order does so only by prohibiting at the same time a number of other strikes of a different nature which we probably should think ought not to be interfered with. Also I ought to say that this element of conspiracy against the public welfare with a view of forcing the Government into action enters to a considerable extent into a good many strikes which are not in their origin of this sympathetic character. I am not saying for a moment that they should be made illegal, but I am saying, and I think it is quite obvious, that in view of what has happened the Government ought to be extremely shy of yielding to the clamour which always arises in the Press when there is a strike of a certain magnitude that "the Government ought to do something." During the Dock Strike it was laid down in the House of Commons upon both sides that the proper ground of
400
Government intervention in trade disputes was not any judgment upon the merits of the dispute but the public injury that might be occasioned in the course of the dispute. That, of course, is a line which might rightly and reasonably be taken in a large number of cases. But put in that general form, as I think it was put by leading men in the House of Commons—I think by leading men on both sides—that principle conies, it seems to me, perilously near to saying to strike leaders, "You may have ever so just a case—we do not care about that; but if you can only make yourselves formidable enough, if you can threaten us with public mischief sufficiently widespread and sufficiently serious, if you can grind the faces of the poor hard enough, then you may rely upon us to come to your aid and do anything we reasonably can to help you, conceding to fear of you what we certainly should not concede to the justice of your ease."
May I refer to what took place in the course of the Dock Strike? I do not do so in any spirit of objectionable candid friendship to the Government, because one knows well what their difficulties were, and I think in the earlier Coal Strike the whole of the country admired unreservedly the firmness and sympathy and the patience of the Prime Minister in dealing with that crisis. At the commencement of the Dock Strike we had a Report from Sir Edward Clarke, who found prima facie proof of the grievances alleged by certain men in the clocks against a few employers; and I would like to say at once how deeply I believe there were very serious grievances and evils existing in the port, particularly outside the jurisdiction of the Port Authority. That Report found certain grievances against certain employers to be proved, but it found also emphatic and complete disproof of just those allegations upon the part of the men winch alone could have given justification for a strike throughout the whole port. Well, upon these findings the President of the Board of Trade issued a manifesto to the strikers, in which he very rightly, as I conceive, proffered the good offices of the Government in securing the redress of grievances, but went on to express his emphatic opinion that the strike ought immediately to be brought to an end. No notice whatever was taken of that advice on his part.

401
The Government still went on persisting for some time in proffering their good offices, which were rendered futile by the simple fact of the continuance of the strike. And not only the Government. Processions, first of Cabinet Ministers, then of prominent Members of both sides of the House of Commons, then of other influential persons including, I think, some right rev. Prelates, went waiting, now on the Port Authority, now on the strike committee, with a view of bringing about an accommodation which really all of them ought to have known from the first was impossible in the circumstances in which the strike was begun. What was the result? I do not think those of us who followed the history of those weeks can doubt for one moment that the result was a considerable encouragement for men to persist week after week in a struggle which from the very first moment of it had been doomed to failure. It was a cruel thing.
I do not think I need enlarge further upon the point which I have raised. I need not do more than barely allude to the somewhat questionable action of His Majesty's Government in the recent North-Eastern Railway strike, on which I ventured to say a few words to your Lordships some weeks ago. There is, I think, ample evidence of the danger that lies in encouraging the idea that the Government will be very ready to intervene if a strike assumes sufficiently terrifying proportions. I frankly say I happen to be one of those people who very much desire to see more frequent and more drastic intervention of the Legislature for the improvement of the conditions of Labour without and altogether apart from the promptings of any strike or agitation. But I believe that I speak on behalf of a good many people who are deeply interested in the progress of Labour when I say that they would welcome any assurance, which I doubt not they will receive, on the part of the Government that they are alive to the danger which I have tried to indicate, and that they are prepared on future occasions to have the nerve to refrain from useless and possibly harmful action in these matters. I apologise for detaining your Lordships so long, and I must thank you for the patience with which you have listened to the observations I have had to make.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, I think in the first place I have some justification for complaining that my noble friend, undoubtedly from no want of courtesy on his part or from want of consideration, after having placed a Notice on the Paper dealing with this question for some weeks, mostly affecting the Board of Trade, which would be represented here by the Master of the Horse, suddenly altered his Notice yesterday. And what did my noble friend do then? He practically made the whole of his attack on the Home Office, which I represent here. Not satisfied with making that alteration, as I say, only yesterday, when the Papers were circulated this morning I found that he had still further altered his Notice and made additions. I only make this complaint of my noble friend for the reason that he must know very well himself, because he has served in a Government Department, that it is very difficult, even if you are immediately connected with a Department, to answer Questions extending over a very large area—and, as your Lordships have heard, the noble Lord has raised very many questions—but when, as in this case, I am not directly connected with the Department any more than my noble friend the Master of the Horse is connected with the Board of Trade, the altering of the terms of the Notice at the last moment does create a good deal of difficulty in giving my noble friend the entire answer he would like and also in giving to your Lordships the answer which is due to you in such a case as this. But as far as possible I will endeavour to deal with the many Questions that the noble Lord has placed on the Paper, with the exception, of course, of the first part of what I may call the preamble of the Notice, and also as regards Question No. 1 which is of purely a legal and technical nature, and which I understand my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will deal with.
I will deal first with what I may call the second part of the preamble of my noble friend's Notice. He complains that the Government interferes unduly under the Conciliation Act with trade disputes. I can assure him that the Government do not in any sense officially interfere in trade disputes unless coerced by the parties to do so, except, of course—and I think the House will see that it is a necessary excep-

403
tion—in the case of grave national danger, and I think the House will agree that the Government were right and acted very properly indeed when they intervened of their own action in the case of the Railway Strike and in the case of the Coal Strike. It is unnecessary to go at length into those two questions, but I think he would be a very brave man indeed in your Lordships' House who would dispute the necessity of those two strikes being ended at the earliest moment, and the country, I feel certain, entirely approved of the action of the Government in that matter.
Then the noble Lord alluded to the question of the Port of London. He referred to the question of the Government or of the Board of Trade interfering. As regards that, the Board of Trade and the Government are bound with respect to any official interference by the Conciliation Act, 1906, and the question which is being referred to now is dealt with under Section 2 of that Act. Noble Lords who are acquainted with that Act will be aware that all that is indicated in subsections (a) and (b) of Section 2 is that the Board of Trade should hold informal and independent inquiry into the matter; and subsections (c) and (d), the operative subsections, apply when officially the Government or the Board of Trade take action. But as regards taking action by appointing an arbitrator, it is especially provided by subsection (d) that an arbitrator can only be appointed at the request of both parties to the dispute, showing that there cannot be interference in the way of a direct forcing of arbitration unless both parties agree to arbitrate. The one party cannot force the other to arbitrate.
As regards the Port of London Authority dispute, what happened in that case? My noble friend complains that the action of the Board of Trade and of the Government was not proper in connection with that. I quite admit that he qualified his charges very often, and when complaining at the same time said that he recognised the difficulties the Government were in. I thank him for that recognition of the difficulties, which of course were great, not only in the case of the Railway Strike and of the Coal Strike but also in the case of the Port of London dispute. The Port of London Strike was a matter of grave national danger, and if it had spread would have involved the whole of the trade and
404
industry of this country. What happened? The Government entered into negotiation and appointed Sir Edward Clarke to hold an inquiry into the matter, and after his Report was presented to the Board of Trade the Board invited the parties concerned to meet the Chief Industrial Commissioner to discuss the report with them. That obviously was the right attitude to take to try to bring a dispute of such magnitude to an end. What happened? The Port Authority refused to meet the men, who had accepted the invitation of the Board of Trade. In consequence the whole matter came to an end, and nothing more could be done. As I have already pointed out, it is impossible for the Board of Trade to take action in an official way and have an arbitration on a dispute unless both parties are agreed to that course being taken. So much for the second part of the preamble of the noble Lord's Notice.
The first Question standing on the Paper is purely a technical and legal question which I must leave to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. As regards Questions No. 2 and 3, those affect the Home Office and I will at once proceed to deal with them. I will take them together because I think the House will see that for practical purposes they are very much mixed up and in some cases almost repeat themselves. First of all I would say, as regards the question of intimidation, that the difficulty of proving intimidation has not been altered at all by the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. Section 2 of the Act does not alter the law as regards intimidation. What has always been a difficulty in the case of intimidation is this. Under the present Act and under the old Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, the difficulty is in procuring evidence. The reason is that the persons who are intimidated, or their friends, refuse to prosecute or give evidence where the Police themselves have not any evidence to enable them to initiate a prosecution. I believe that that reluctance is not due to the fact that the persons who ought to come forward as witnesses to institute the prosecution are afraid of immediate violence during the strike, but rather that it is due to the fear of boycotting or molestation after the strike is over; that is to say, for many weeks or perhaps months or even years afterwards those people would be pointed at as the people who had, it would be said, behaved in an unfair way and had

405
not stood up for the interests of their fellow workers in a particular area. That, I believe, is here the difficulty comes in of getting evidence. On the other hand, there have been undoubtedly many successful prosecutions; and where they have been unsuccessful I am informed that the Police generally do not consider that it has been due to the defence having been set up of peaceful persuasion. No doubt that is what the noble Lord is aiming at. He has been thinking that under Section 2 of the Trade Disputes Act peaceful persuasion has given a free hand to intimidation, molestation, and violence. I am informed that in the opinion of the Police that is not so; and, of course, you have all the powers under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act contained in Section 7, which was not repealed by the Act of 1906. All that the Act of 1906 did as regards Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act was to repeal the last part of that section and re-enact it all again, with the exception of adding these words to it, "or of peacefully persuading any person to abstain from working." That is the only alteration made in that section, which still remains with the various regulations which, for instance, allow prosecution for violence or intimidation or where persons intimidate a workman's wife and children, or injure property, or persistently follow a person about to induce him to abstain from working. I think it can fairly be said that the amending Act of 1906 as far as Section 2 is concerned, does not allow intimidation at all. It would be very difficult to prove that it does.
The noble Lord has referred to picketing. It has been held that if the pickets are too numerous it amounts to intimidation, and action can be taken by the Police. Again, the persistent following of persons to induce them to abstain from work is still an offence under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875. Then, again, it is an offence for a picket of three or more persons in a disorderly manner to interfere with a man's work; and pickets also, as I think noble Lords are aware, are not exempt from the ordinary law such as that of trespass. My noble friend seemed to think that pickets had a perfect right to trespass, because he said it was a shameful thing that there should be domiciliary visits to a man's house and his wife and children intimidated. Any picket who goes into a workman's
406
house for such a purpose is a trespasser; he can be dealt with under the law of trespass awl can be ejected, and the Police not only have the duty but have the obligation of protecting the workman. I cannot, therefore, understand the noble Lord when he says that strikers can go and interfere with a man in his own house.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I expressly and clearly said that, as far as I understood, the law against intimidation was not in any degree whatsoever within the Act of 1906. The criminal remedy against all these things is quite undiminished. My point was that a criminal prosecution of these individuals is an ineffective remedy, and that the only really effective and most merciful remedy would be to make the organisations who employ these men to do these acts liable for their actions.
LORD STRACHIE: I cannot understand my noble friend's interruption. He raised a cheer from the other side of the House when he pointed out that workmen were visited in their houses and that the fact was they had no protection in their own houses. I point out to him that they have protection. He might complain that the Police do not properly protect them, but that is a complaint against the Police and not against the Act or any action which the Government have taken with regard to legislation. I am within the recollection of the House when I say that the noble Lord put forward this complaint as an attack upon the action of the Government. It may be, as I say, an attack upon the Police, but that is a very different matter, and it is quite possible that the Police in every case cannot protect every workman's house.
Then as regards the ordinary law with respect to obstruction in the street, the Police have full power and have a duty to see that there shall be no obstruction, that the conduct of pickets is orderly, and that they do not cause intimidation by their numbers or by their conduct; and in the recent Port of London strike there was action taken in this matter and these regulations were very useful indeed to the Police in keeping order during that strike. If the Police have failed they have failed not because of any defect in the law but from the impossibility, whatever their numbers may be, in any great strike of being present at all places and at all times

407
when intimidation might be likely to occur. Undoubtedly the worst form of intimidation is following workers to and from their houses and watching outside their houses. But I would ask the House, How is it possible under the present law or any law during a great strike for every house to be watched night and day by a constable and for every workman to be conducted under escort to and from his work? That seems to me perfectly impossible, and I venture to think that the noble Lord who has raised this question would not venture to contend that this Government or any Government could legislate for that kind of difficulty. All we have to depend upon is the Police, and I think in the late strikes we have seen that the Police have done their duty in the most admirable way with the greatest firmness and tact and consideration, with the result, although there may have been unfortunate incidents, that in the great majority of cases law and order have been maintained without any undue friction; and I think, speaking on behalf of the Home Office, that the Police have shown that under the existing law they are able to maintain law and order, taking it as a whole, in the most admirable way.
In his last Question on the Paper my noble friend asks whether in future the intervention of the Government in trade disputes will, so far as possible, be limited to the regular action of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade. My answer to my noble friend is a very short one indeed. The Government will act as they have acted on the principle laid down in the Question. Government intervention in trade disputes has been and is limited as far as possible to the regular action of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think my noble friend behind me who raised this question has been treated a little cavalierly by the noble Lord who has just sat down. He seemed all through to be still suffering from the grievance he mentioned at the beginning of his reply that there had been some changes in the Notice on the Paper. I would mention that the Notice has been on the Paper for a great many weeks now.
LORD STRACHIE: It has been completely altered.
EARL RUSSELL: Although there have been some changes in it, still we all understood, or at least I understood, from the Questions originally that the noble Lord behind me was going to raise very much the points that he did raise in his speech and in his argument. I turn first to the question of the Trade Disputes Act, 1006, which was raised also by the noble Earl opposite. We have been considering tonight a most important subject, and I think it is to be regretted that more members of your Lordships' House have not been present and taken an interest in it, because in my opinion these industrial questions and disputes are the important questions of the future, far more important than our ordinary political and Party divisions, and it is very necessary that as far as we can in the comparatively calm atmosphere of this House we should endeavour to consider how they are to be dealt with. As regards the Trade Disputes Act there is this curious point, that both the noble Lords who asked the Questions and also the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack were not in this House in 1906 when the Bill came up. I am speaking entirely from recollection—I have not looked up the Debates—but the general impression left on my mind is that Lord Balfour of Burleigh and I were the only two members of this House who expressed consternation at the Bill and who said that they thought it was a very bad Bill and required amendment. I have always felt that the Bill was an extremely dangerous I one. I have never concealed that from myself, and I do not think I concealed I it from the House when the Bill came up here.
You adopted, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said, one of two methods to remove a grievance, and I think he suggested himself that it was open to question whether the Bill was ideally desirable in the abstract, but that it was, perhaps, the lesser of two evils and the best way out of a difficulty. That, I think, was the only apology he was able to make for the Act. It is very easy always to raise a suggestion that it is necessary to protect the sick and benefit funds of the trade unions. That is less necessary in a sense now that we have the National Insurance Act, but it is verb easy to raise sympathy in the case of any raid on these funds. It has been pointed

409
out, however, that the trade unions themselves have always reserved the right to use these funds for the purpose of industrial warfare. No one denies them that right. What you have said is that they shall have all the rights of combatants but suffer none of the penalties of combatants, and by this Act you have set up, I will not say a class of individuals, but an organisation which is above and outside the law. That, I venture to think and always have thought, is an extremely dangerous thing to do, and may have very far-reaching consequences.
It is perfectly true that the individuals who do these tortious acts remain liable, and it is quite irrelevant to deal with tortious acts which are criminal because criminal acts you can punish under the Criminal Law. There are, however, tortious acts which are not criminal, but which none the less inflict a great deal of pecuniary damage on other people and may inflict a great deal of pain upon them in the case of grave libels. It would be perfectly easy for a great organisation of this kind—and we owe it only to the fact that on the whole workmen have behaved very well and have not used in a wrongful manner the immense power given them that it has not occurred—it would be perfectly easy for a large organisation with a great war fund to do any amount of damage to business concerns and other people for which you would have no remedy whatever against them. They could put forward men of straw to print the libels and issue them, and unless the libels were criminal you could not touch these men of straw except by way of civil action. That would rehabilitate the personal character, no doubt, of the person libelled, but would not recompense him for any pecuniary loss he had suffered. By this Act you allow Organisations to carry on campaigns of this character with impunity, and I think that is an extremely dangerous thing. I ask your Lordships to consider what the position would be if such an organisation as the militant suffragettes were to disguise themselves as a trade union and publish their pamphlets inciting to crime and carry on the mischievous part of their work under that protection. You could punish the individuals, but you could get no injunctions against the organisation or against the persons responsible for publishing the pamphlets. That is one thing
410
which I think your Lordships should have considered.
In dealing with these matters it is, perhaps, necessary to say that I am speaking not only as a friend of Labour but as a friend of trade unions and an admirer of the work that trade unions have done and a believer in their necessity. I think that Labour has many grievances and has still much to ask for, but I am that generally unpopular person in this matter, a candid friend. I think it well that one should not encourage people, as was very well said by Lord Charnwood, to think that they may do those things that are wrong and suffer no penalty, and that one should not put trade unions in a position that they can do wrong things without being punished for it. We have also to consider the principle of individual liberty, and that principle is a great deal infringed by the picketing provisions of the Trade Disputes Act. When that Act was in this House in 1906, I implored the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Loreburn, to modify in some way those provisions. My recollection is that I then pointed out that you made it perfectly possible under that Bill for no fewer than 1,000 men to picket the house of an individual workman. It is perfectly true that such a picket might be peaceful in the sense that they might not break the man's windows with stones or have cudgels in their hands, and might not resort to blows. But your Lordships can perfectly well realise what a workman and his family would feel if there was a raging and infuriated crowd in the road outside his house. That is what my noble friend meant when he spoke of domiciliary visits. I did not understand him to mean that the picket would go into a man's kitchen or his back garden and trample his flower beds. A workman's house is not like a mansion standing in a park. It fronts on the road, and the crowd outside would be as near to him as noble Lords opposite are to me, and their observations on his conduct during the strike, which would reach the ears of himself and family, might amount to a very considerable invasion of his rights and to very serious intimidation. Those things have been made possible by this Act.
The noble Lord asked whether consideration would be given to this question and to amendments of the Act. In Question No. 1 the noble Lord asks whether His

411
Majesty's Government will watch any further tendency to the employment of libel or other tortious conduct as a weapon in trade disputes with a view to the amendment of the section if necessary. The noble Lord on the Front Bench said that that was a purely legal question. That is the very thing I should have said the question was not. I should have said it was a question of policy. You are not asked to amend a particular section or how to draft another section to replace it. You are asked whether you will watch conduct which arises under that section and which is justified by that section with a view to considering as a matter of political policy whether it is well that the section should be amended. The noble Marquess opposite who intervened early in this debate said that he rather objected to his side being taunted with having assented to the passage of this Bill through this House in 1906, because his Party objected in any way to being saddled with the responsibility of it. The noble Marquess enunciated the high constitutional doctrine that this House never interferes with what it believes to be the considered judgment of the constituencies. I do not think I misrepresent him in putting it in that way. I do not think this Bill before it reached this House had ever received the judgment of the constituencies at all. I do not know whether the noble Marquess is going to apply that high constitutional doctrine next week. Let us hope so. But that is a doctrine which was not applied to Mr. Lloyd George's Budget, and I think the noble Marquess and his friends can by no means absolve themselves from the responsibility of allowing the Bill to pass in the form in which it stood even though there was a large majority in favour of it in another place. They might have exercised the powers which this House then possessed to amend the Bill or delay its passage, or negotiate any reasonable Amendments, and if they thought it wise not to do so I do not think they should shelter themselves behind the high constitutional doctrine the noble Marquess referred to. I think they allowed it to pass because they were afraid of arousing the opposition of the working classes and through fear of the working class vote, because they believed that the workmen were as a whole desirous of obtaining immense powers which I think will prove to be really harmful for them.
412
As regards the other Questions, I think we all agree in the proposition that we wish workmen to have the weapon of the strike at their disposal when they wish to strike, and not in any way to be subject to injunction from the Courts or any other restraint in striking; but I think we ought to feel that we want to give liberty also to other people who take opposite views in the dispute. It is considered nowadays almost an improper thing—I will not say by His Majesty's Government or necessarily by a majority of the other House—to allow a black-leg workman to take work or to encourage him to work during a strike. I can understand the irritation of workmen on strike when other workmen attempt to take their places, but until we change our ideas of individual liberty in this country and change our laws on this subject the duty of the Government is to allow every individual to make up his mind, not subject to coercion, but subject only to argument as to whom he will sell his labour. I have no particular sympathy with the black-leg in any particular trade union, any more than we have in the union to which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and I belong. We all wish to keep up prices. But I think it is the first duty of the Government, while legislation remains as it is, to consider individual liberty, and I regret that there should be an impression abroad that any Government would look lightly on disturbances that might take place in the course of a strike. We know perfectly well that during any large strike there will be excesses, and the trade unions are not to be blamed for those excesses and the Government is not to be blamed for them. They are apt to take place as part of the natural irritation of the people engaged in the strike. But it is not to be supposed that those excesses are to be looked at as other than sporadic and exceptional, and I think my noble friend is to be congratulated on having raised this question to-day. It is a desirable thing that the working of this Act should be considered. I see no reason why the Government, who are in touch with the representatives of Labour, should not put their heads together and consider whether some means cannot be devised short of this absolute and dangerous immunity which is now given to labour organisations, by which the legitimate aspirations of trade unionists can be satisfied.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I should like to support what was said by my noble friend, Lord Charnwood, particularly in so far as he dealt with pickets. There is no doubt that since this Act came into force there has been no law and order whenever a strike has broken out of any magnitude. The noble Lord on the Front Bench who answered for the Government said that the Police in every case did their best to maintain law and order. There are many cases which I could give him in which the Police have actually winked at breaches of the law. They have been in a position in which they themselves many times could have prosecuted people who were breaking the law. They have not done so, and I think we can only put this down to the head of the Home Office and the way in which the Home Office has been conducted in the last two or three years.
I am one of those unfortunate people who voted for the Trade Disputes Bill in the House of Commons in 1906. I voted for it because it was a Bill to take the financial liability off trade unions, but I had no idea at the time that I was going to empower mobs of men of anything from 200 to 2,000 to sweep round the works, to intimidate men in their private houses, to invade private property, which they continually do, and to put themselves entirely above the law. I consider that the answer given by the noble Lord as to the action of the Police in this matter is a most unsatisfactory one, and I can see no way of improving things except by repealing that part of the Trade Disputes Act. I would like to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack why the pickets should not be limited to one man in each case. Surely one man is quite sufficient to "peacefully persuade" any workman and to inform him as to the rights of any particular dispute. That would immediately stop an enormous amount of intimidation. I have privately written to various members of the Cabinet and advocated this view, but they all fall back on the hackneyed reply, "Oh, the law of property is quite strong enough, and this Act does not interfere with it." In practice I think you will all agree—at any rate those who have had any experience of big strikes will agree—that it is an impossible thing almost to pick out a man in a crowd of two or three thousand strikers and take action against him for damaging property or for breach of the Civil Law. If the
414
pickets were limited to one man it would be a very different state of affairs, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will consider that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any lengthy observations. The question of Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act I have already dealt with in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore. But two further points have been raised, one of them by my noble friend who has just spoken. The impression is, and it is a very extensive one, that the Trade Disputes Act in some way took away restrictions upon pickets which were of a very proper kind. In point of fact what happened was this. The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act of 1875 enabled pickets to operate for the purpose of conveying information, but if they went beyond that it was illegal. Consequently what was called "peaceful persuasion" was legalised by a section in the Trade Disputes Act. There is no objection to peaceful persuasion if it is really peaceful persuasion. The whole question is whether it is peaceful persuasion. The point about that is not that the Trade Disputes Act is wrong in enabling pickets to attend for the purpose of peaceful persuasion.
A substantial distinction should be drawn between the action of a mob tumultuously conveying information and the action of a mob peacefully persuading. The whole point is how the thing is done, and what I want to draw your Lordships' attention to once more is this—that the Trade Disputes Act has not altered the law which makes it unlawful either to convey information or to peacefully persuade if you do it in a tumultuous or threatening fashion. If one man goes to a workman's cottage and says, "You really must not break the strike," that is one thing; but where it is done by a hundred men it is a different thing, and a reasonable state of terror spreads itself amongst those who are subject to such a domiciliary visit. Such a domiciliary visit is illegal. If people come in such numbers and in such a fashion as shows that they really are threatening and if such apprehensions are spread in the minds of the people whom they visit, then the numbers are most material in considering whether something illegal according to the law has been done. What I want to point out to your Lordships is this. The authorities

415
have found no difficulty in prosecuting under this Act so far as the state of the law goes. They have found no embarrassment of any sort or kind arising from the Trade Disputes Act.
I am informed that the difficulty is not in the least greater than it was before. The difficulty remains precisely the same as before the passing of the Act—namely, that people will not come forward and give evidence. The law is now as it always was, and nothing in the Trade Disputes Act has materially affected it. It was always possible for one or more people to go and convey information, just as it is possible now for one or more people to go and peacefully persuade. The whole point is how they do it, and there is no difficulty greater than in prosecuting and getting witnesses to come forward and give evidence when once the illegality is done. That difficulty existed formerly, and it exists to-day. The workman himself will not come forward because he is afraid of a further visitation from those whose conduct is complained of, and consequently the position of the authorities has been a very difficult one. Administrative action has been taken by the Police of a valuable kind. They have very often been able to arrange that the real pickets should wear badges. In that case it is easier to distinguish people who are not pickets and who are not there for any legitimate purpose. I think that is a very good plan. It may be in come cases not easy to carry out, but in a great many cases it has been carried out successfully. Under the instructions of the Home Office the Police have done all they can to carry out the substance of the Act as it exists at the present time, and I hope that the beneficial result will be recognised by both sides more and more, so that the pickets will readily become distinguishable and be able to be marked out as persons whose conduct is not intended to be unlawful, and their conduct is more likely to remain lawful by reason of the fact that they are distinguished from those about them. So much for the question of picketing.
As regards the interference of the Government in strikes, the operation of interfering in any strike is a most delicate one, and I only venture to say anything to your Lordships about it because I had a good deal to do with the consideration which was given by the Government to the
416
question at the time of the Dock Strike. At that time after a great deal of consultation we came to the conclusion that we ought to distinguish in disputes which affected what I may call the arterial life of the nation—I mean strikes relating to the railway system, to transport, to coal, and to matters that go to the very possibility of the subsistence of our people. We thought that in those cases the duty of the Government was to be specially watchful, and if they could go in at an early point and interfere by way of bringing the parties together and obtaining information they should do so. But there again I realise that you may make things worse instead of better by interfering. It is the most delicate of all situations to judge of, and I only say that when you are dealing with those things which go to the vitality of the nation any Government is very deeply responsible which does not watch in the closest fashion what is going on and intervene in any way it can.
In the case of the Dock Strike we asked a very distinguished public man, Sir Edward Clarke, to intervene and make an inquiry and furnish a report—a sort of preliminary trial of the merits of the question between the two parties concerned. We did that because we thought there was great value in the public being fully apprised of what was the real dispute between the parties. We thought that if once we could bring out the real merits of the dispute the public could express an opinion with regard to it, and that a settlement would be more likely if the public opinion of the country could lie efficiently brought to bear on the dispute. I think to a certain extent that was a useful process, and it may be that that process can be developed in the future in a more scientific fashion. The Industrial Council is considering that matter, and very shortly they will report. I hope that their report and the evidence will be laid before the public in order that the public may be informed how difficult and at the same time how important it is to judge rightly in these matters. I believe that we can do a good deal more by Courts of Inquiry than we have clone up to the present, but not in the way of stopping a strike compulsorily. I have great doubts whether public opinion in this country will ever allow you to come in and say to men, "If you continue to refuse to work you are committing a crime;" or in the same way to say to

417
employers, "If you refuse to employ your men you are offending against the law." But I think public opinion will recognise, if a serious dispute arises connected with these arterial branches of national life, that there should be such an inquiry. I thank it is well worth considering whether what was done in practice in the Dock Strike under the provisions of the Conciliation Act should not be done in a more systematic and scientific fashion by a proper Court of Inquiry on the occasion of every trade dispute. That is a matter which is under consideration by the Industrial Council, and we shall be before long in a position to say more on the subject. Meanwhile I think I have answered the supplementary questions which have been put.
LORD CHARNWOOD: May I make two brief explanations? One is with regard to the complaint with which, rather to my astonishment I may say, the noble Lord who replied for the Government began. It is perfectly true that I have altered my Questions very considerably since the distant day when they first appeared on the Paper—partly, I think, to oblige my noble friend and his colleagues to whom I
418
have constantly referred them. But the alterations consisted, first, in cutting out about half of the points my original Questions raised, and, secondly, in making as I thought more explicit and more intelligible the remaining Questions. May I make clear one thing with regard to the picketing of houses? Prima facie and apart from any particular enactment it was supposed to be unlawful for pickets to station themselves outside the gates of works. The particular section of the Act legalises that. But it also, as I understand it, legalises the patrolling by a picket of the streets or the stationing of a picket outside the houses in which workmen live. That seems to me to have been quite unnecessary. While I am, of course, perfectly aware of the impossibility of the Government defending everybody against every possible outrage, I make this suggestion. The course of the Police might be simplified if picketing outside the place where the workman resides was cut out of the sanction which by Statute is given to pickets, and which they would not otherwise possess.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.